I 


library of congress 


0 0 D 13 4 7 Lf Lf 3 b 


‘ . ' - • • ' t r ' 1 ' . ^ 

\^ yu '] CV - ' 

> 1 , I r' I / i' • . ' » ’ • <■ . f ' i i ^ ‘ f f , 


i ‘ \ 

i ; ^ 


< . '., f . 1 . i':, 

'. - 1 ^ r: ': ? 


' ; I * r 

> i 


• ^ “ c' ‘ ■ 

’ »■ ■ •' ? 

::■;!■■■ 

I i • t . • 


, tl: 






. / , :• ; r /1 \ ■ . / . ' •;.„ ; \\t :.!'■ j f''- tii' e-. ■ f: r ‘.»• ‘ 


. * * J ’. \ ‘ r ^ . . I I' ; I * » : ^ ( I 1 1 » • '. 

' -■' <■ *• .•■'. .* • I ■ if* •; . • .• '••.’ •■ V J -'. .•'< I .- *) 


j.- 


■' ; >. ^ '.) .'v'' i '■■. !• '.‘ i' ’. • ■'■■ *'»: V' '■ < * >.'' / s U 

■;'..' :.o- ■ >■;. J <} *'-h'' '>’:’ •'»'*-' !>■'• 

i « • ' •. • » ■ ' ‘ ‘ T ■ > • '^ • -' r ■ »' V . : ' f •» ' 1 V f ■>■ i . t ',} \ I ' 

• *. '• ■ •• ••\ •'••.'i ' 'V' >»c x; V,',; ■'•/' ;m , r.».5' 7,^ 

i';>■; iU.hr’- uuu-hr : ,:h f’ yh\'\r''lh 

\ Ih'ih^hUh': '^•■'r- y.- - ^ruy^yrh 

.' • • * ;, - •. ■■-, V . K ■ \ .•,;. • , t . . « - I -• • • / • . ♦ / . < • „ > - * ^ , I 4, 

. , » “ « • 1 fit ' » ? ' , » ^' • I » ' ' » ', • ' « • « > i V KI 

• • \ > t : s . I * • ' » ' - ■ * 


' * ' » ■ ' . '■ r ' . »•••’, I, t < I ■', ; K t - . • ' , 

. ■: - ’ '. ■' t; ^ •*,.' vi;* ,• ^ • •;'-:; 

’r>. , * ^- • ^ 

' •, '• ‘ » r • ’ ‘ ’ *. ‘V i‘ - ^, 

' ,. X . ■ .• ■■ * ' ■. •. • ' • ’ ’ l' • : ■ 

I . . ' , ■ ^ ' ‘ ' ' \ ' . ' * ' ' ■' ' ' ' • '• t ' J v 

■: ■' ■: '■''-■■■ ■ .r r-' h-. 

\': }.:\:y ' •■, 'hhh-h • huy. 


/ ' * I t ' . ^ 

' N. .' 4 • ■ - . 

' • I ' • , 1 

'. V , .. V " . 

b . • I . ; ^ , 

i *» • • I * 

> '. *, < i • ■ ■'. , 




. ' .K'r' 

■ysr 'r ' '*'• ■. 

> ' ■ • u.x; 

•• , • .. ‘ v. \ • I; . 

■, '' '^■ IV i • 

v;'; '■■': ■ b’’ 









































♦ ^ 



0"0 A.^ ‘- ' ® Cl r ® " ® -* *^0 

^ -- - »■* / 7 ^ -r C • ^ KSf U*^ 

«N ♦ ^(if/y^^ , ’J^ , * c^SxWh-^'« iN ♦ 

o V . - -^0 . 

0 >- * \ 0 r^ 

^ W.xTIWSfC^ Wo y<V * '• ^ 

V p " • .aO^ 6 */^' 


^ ^0 ^ •* 




.v^ 


•« '■ 

•<^fv C,^ ♦ 

y -V ^ '", 

<^ 'o'. '* * «0 

•l'*' *W« 5 i’ ^ •^^?»^^^ -J"^ y^M^- %■ ‘ 

-fu-o^ ' 


• A 

* *s e* ■* -oy 

o,A ^ '"^7^.%^ A 




^ V", 


C • 

0 ^ : 

'^^^HAVVvJ ' • * 

ti^ ^ < 1 .*^ O ^ c.-l^ 4 ^ 

... -Si. ‘'°«‘' %.*”’* ' 

* ^ ♦A^r/k‘’ 

2 






* A 



■ <“ . » 

qV 0 «o^ ^ 

^ .. %sSa aY'^ 4 \ ♦ 



* ^ «» 


< o 

' ^ 

• o . . 

■>'¥^<. ■% y ’yVA- ! 

: 'MSMl>i° '%‘i 





■♦ .. 

.. <‘^ '».,• y % '.TIT* A 

^ •*■**'» .* 0 ^ 0 ® " ® ♦ *^0 • *’ * 




^ . 0 ^ o^V*. o 

ry- G • O 

< 0 ^ 

3 ^ 

• 4 .^ 



• • s * A ' o , * '* ^G 

A .•■'•♦ '<^ 0^ o °" 

W A- ** "* 'Pf. ^ o'»v V 

: Ao^ 

O’" ,.o "^o '’ o'^° .-•. -v^^ 0.^ *•' 

■#^. A 't^ . 4 .'*^ .‘i«ft^'. 7 . 



!^°-nf.. 





. .** y <i^ ■■^•^^^■> . 

.V „ a „ '^. a\ 




'/ '^d. *- , 

AV ■^-- A % . 

0 * 0 °,"". *o -v^ • *^ ' • ♦ 0 ^ o o “ ®-* *■ ' 

7 0 *''j^((l 7 ^ '%^ ^ o 



^ 4. < 

o V 



v‘^-\/ .. V'^\/ \.‘*-.’.o 



w A>*- 4 *^ 



cy ♦ 



















wy 


» • 





4 ’ 


t # « 







> 0 * 

^-* ^ ^ fck.^ •’ 

.., •^ *»-«’ ^ •... • ^0 

^ ju ^ \t - t • o r%* « • • 

<X*^ JH\ Ka /h ^ -ov (-'t?- ♦ 



\<\' '<u■'»^^* 0 ^' 

y C°^ .•'' 





<L^ O ^ 

..o O .., 

^ o 

• 

o 

y*^ 

"-T-T- A 

/.O^ '^O - *■ ' 

V ♦ , 4 :^:^ O ^ 



\0 v\ * 

rr;-’ ,o’ '#■ ^ 


1 * 0 ^ 

• *’ 0-0 

; O ^ll!l^^ A 

.. s ^ A <‘ -o. . - 0^ t:> *'^'r.'s ^ 

t * ‘■JJ ^ ^ /-Cj o ® " ° -» ^ . *^ ' «- 

fc ^ ^ -7^ c, . ,,S^ <" o J*^ .t /X>^ ♦ 'T^ r. 






O M 








xP 

^ *« 

• I •• ♦ 


•?►■** ♦' 

A 'Z^- J ^^wpiinn^^ O « V * 

.. A ^ 

- 0^ C ® •»■'•* '<^ 

0 • '" ' 






c • 

H 
O 

. *" O N O * o / -1 • ^O'' ^ ^ ^ ^ „ 

V ^ aO “S^ t^*°* o 

A ♦ wvW/v,*'- % '' 





A 


* 


’ 0 'S' 

* 'y ^ 



’ <- A 


^ /. 


A <^ 'o,*- G^ A 

Qv ^ O '* o ^ ^^ 0 _ ^ ^ 0 ^ c ° ** ® ^ ^O • 

y^j??7^ C • . o 



o O' 


0 



j .0 r^ * 

’ ♦ r\ 

V **'’•’./ .. ' 



i t 6 



: '^o V" 

,. V'- 



O n < 


‘’- *0 V" I.!*®-. . 0 " **/•'* 






'■ 



\. >. 













t 


















A ^^olen Nomination 

FOR THE 

Presidency 


The Facts of the Chicago 
Convention of 1912 


^ IDTOSBr 
OP comn^ 




ISSUED BY 

THE PROVISIONAL NATIONAL COMMITTEE 
OF THE 

NATIONAL PROGRESSIVE PARTY 


NEW YORK 

















/ 


THOU SHALT NOT STEAL ^ 

EXTRACT FROM EDITORIAL BY THEODORE ROOSEVELT 

{Reprintedfrom "The Outlook") 

The American people are entitled to know that the charge 
of stealing the Chicago convention of 1912 is more than cam¬ 
paign recrimination, and that the frauds complained of are much 
more serious than the mere repetition of loose practises which 
might have found unfortunate precedents in some previous 
conventions of both parties. Seriously and literally, President 
Taft’s renomination was stolen for him, from the American 
people, and the ratification or rejection of that nomination raises 
the critical issue whether votes or fraud shall determine the 
selection of American presidents. There may have been loose 
or arbitrary decisions of individual contests before; but this is 
the first time—and it must be made the last time—that a national 
committee, by conscious and intentional fraud, deliberately 
transforms the minority of a national convention into a ma¬ 
jority, and thereby substitutes the brute power of a committee of 
professional political bosses for the expressed will of the people 
as a whole. 

These statements are capable of mathematical demonstra¬ 
tion. More than enough delegates to make up Mr. Taft’s 
majority in the convention were seated there by contests so 
transparently fraudulent that honest doubt could not, and did 
not, exist in regard to them. President Taft was renominated 
by a majority of barely twenty-one votes, and two of these were 
publicly raped at the last moment from Massachusetts. If, 
therefore, more than nineteen or twenty-one of his votes were 
demonstrably fraudulent, all claim to an honest majority disap¬ 
pears. The demonstration can be made as to many more than 
this number without touching on a single honestly debatable 
case. 

This reckoning takes no account of the notorious fact that 
even the undisputed part of Mr. Taft’s support was largely 
artificial and misrepresentative, made up of delegates from the 
outlying possessions, from hopelessly democratic states, and 
from states where the people had been successfully denied the 
expression of their will. Such an artificial handicap is an in¬ 
justice, but it stops short of being criminal. Neither does the 
reckoning take full account of the fact that at least eighty or 
ninety of the rejected Roosevelt delegates had a better title to 
vote in the convention than dkl the seated delegates from New 
York City. It does not even include many cases quite as flagrant, 
but not so notorious, as the ones here discussed. It is sufficient to 


I 


consider only the four confessedly indefensible cases of Cali¬ 
fornia, Arizona, Washington, and Texas, which alone more than 
wipe out the margin. All that could be added from the other 
cases would only increase the Roosevelt majority of the honest 
convention. But I wish it distinctly understood that many of 
these other cases were as clear as the California case itself. This 
was true of the Tennessee and Kentucky cases, for instance, the 
Kentucky cases being especially noteworthy because of the way 
in which Federal office-holders were used by the Taft people to 
supplement the work of fraud; and in Indiana, Michigan, Ala¬ 
bama, and Arkansas cases just as flagrantly against justice were 
decided; while one Louisiana case was the most flagrant of all. 
But the California, Arizona, Washington, and Texas cases were 
the best known, and in them there was practically no room for 
dispute as to the facts. 

It is significant that these four cases were among the last 
decided by the national committee. The committee first heard a 
large number of contests which had evidently been brought more 
for the purpose of demonstrating the misrepresentative character 
of the delegations from certain democratic states than for the 
hope of seating the particular contestants. Then it decided a 
number of other cases, some of which ingenuity might make 
plausibly debatable. Not until it was demonstrated that even all 
these cases were insufficient to reverse the majority in the con¬ 
vention did the committee go to the final length of throwing out 
the honest representatives of these four states. When this dras¬ 
tic course was finally decided on, debate was obstructed and cur¬ 
tailed, roll-calls were refused, and the proceedings of the commit¬ 
tee lost all semblance of even pretended fairness. It was public 
and undisguised robbery, and all who instigated it and helped 
carry it out, all who profited by it, and all who condone or apolo¬ 
gize for it stand on the same low plane of morality. 

Three of these cases were a direct assault on the right of the 
people to elect their own delegates at primaries, since in them a 
few score politicians decided that the voters as a whole had no 
right themselves to decide whom they wished to see nominated. 
In the California case the delegates to the national convention 
were elected by direct vote at state-wide preferential primaries. 
The national committee first, and then the national republican 
convention, nullified the state law, and therefore, by inference, all 
state primary laws. In Arizona and Washington the control of 
the state conventions depended on which of two rival delegations 
were seated from certain counties, the one set elected by the re¬ 
publican voters at primaries regularly called, and the other set 
arbitrarily appointed by bolting minorities of county committees. 
The state committees, in each case, seated the appointed delegates, 
and the national committee approved that action. 


A GLANCE AT THE NATIONAL 
COMMITTEE 

The Republican National Committee met in Chicago on 
June 6, 1912. 

Many people, well informed as to general issues which 
divide parties, who follow the records of public men, and who 
may be said to be well versed in politics, have only a hazy in> 
pression of what may be called the anatomy of politics—that 
is to say, the sources of political power, along what lines it moves 
and is directed, where it is stored, and how it can be stolen and 
deflected from its legitimate channels. 

They know that national conventions are composed of dele¬ 
gates from the several States, but how the delegates are chosen 
or representation apportioned, how the convention is organized, 
manipulated, and sometimes, as happened at Chicago, coerced 
into misrepresentative action, against the judgment and wishes 
of the party, are subjects upon which the information of most 
of us is very deficient. 

We all know that there is a body called the national com¬ 
mittee; that it wields great power, and that its action is some¬ 
times, as recently, the subject of bitter and wide-spread denun¬ 
ciation. But few know just how the committee goes about it to 
thwart the party’s will, and just why many of its members have 
incurred such general odium. 

The national committee consists of fifty-three members—one 
from each State and the territorial possessions, Alaska, the 
District of Columbia, Hawaii, the Philippines, and Porto Rico. 
Each has a member in the national committee, and although the 
territorial possessions cast no vote in the Presidential election, 
their representatives in the national committee have equal voice 
and power with the representatives of populous States, such as 
New York and Pennsylvania. 

The members of the committee are not by virtue of their 
membership participants in the convention of the party. They 
are not necessarily delegates to the convention. In fact, a large 
number of the national committeemen were defeated for election 
as delegates to the recent Chicago convention. The national 
committee is not a committee of the convention. It is not ap¬ 
pointed by the convention. It does not report to the convention, 
and yet this irregular and unoflicial body practically overlies the 
convention and determines for all practical purposes its course 
and its choice of candidates, by making up the temporary roll 
of the convention and thus determining who shall sit and who 
shall not sit as delegates. 


3 


4 

All contests arising from the election of delegates to the 
convention are referred in the first instance to the national 
committee. The credentials of elected delegates are forwarded 
to the committee from the several States, and formal notices of 
all contests are likewise transmitted to it. 

About two weeks prior to the opening of the convention, 
the national committee meets for the purpose, theoretically, of 
considering these contests, examining evidence, and hearing 
arguments. It thus makes up a temporary roll of the convention. 

The credentials committee is nothing more nor less than a 
body whose personnel is carefully selected to make sure of the 
ratification of the prior action of the national committee on 
contests, and transmits nominally its own, but in reality the 
recommendations of the national committee, to the convention 
on the subject of roll of delegates, in case of appeals from the 
decisions of the national committee. 

The credentials committee has a member from each state, 
chosen by the delegates from each state, whose credentials have 
first been approved by the national committee. At the Chicago 
convention several of its members were also members of the 
national committee, and thus sat in review of their own prior 
decisions. In every case the credentials committee sustained 
the national committee, as it was intended to do; and, in fact, 
any other result was carefully precluded by the manner of the 
organization of the credentials committee, as pointed out. 

The national committeemen, one from each state, are 
chosen by the delegates from that state to the preceding national 
convention. The national committee which recently met in 
Chicago had been elected four years previously by the delegates 
to the convention which nominated Mr. Taft in 1908. 

Of the thirty-nine members who formed the solid Taft 
phalanx within the committee, fifteen were defeated and repu¬ 
diated within their own States a few weeks prior to the con¬ 
vention. Four represented territories or insular possessions 
having no votes in a presidential election. Ten were from 
southern states that have given no electoral vote to the Repub¬ 
lican party. When it is said of the committeemen that certain 
of them had been repudiated in their own states reference is 
made to such committeemen as Senator Boise Penrose of 
Pennsylvania, who had failed of election as a delegate to the 
national convention. In the same category is Senator W. 
Murray Crane of Massachusetts. Senator Crane had been 
defeated in his own State for election as delegate-at-large to 
the convention, and failed to secure reelection as a member of 
the national committee. Mr. Victor Rosewater, of Nebraska, 


5 

had been defeated in his State as a candidate for national com- 
rnitteeman, and sat upon the national committee for the last 
time; and there were numerous others in the same plight. 

The notorious part in the committee’s proceedings played 
by Penrose, Crane, Rosewater, and their companions in defeat, 
like the final shot of the retreating Parthian, marked their egress 
from the field of active politics. 

There were thus twenty-nine members, or two more than 
a majority of the whole committee, who were without any 
political standing whatever, and yet had the power to unseat 
delegates elected by popular state-wide primaries, as in the case 
of California; to recognize delegates without a shadow of right 
to sit in the convention, as in the case of Texas; and thus by a 
series of indefensible decisions, disregarding evidence, ignoring 
merits, and in some instances without any basis whatever for 
their action, to mold and fix arbitrarily the composition of the 
national convention. 

The total number of delegates making up the convention 
was 1,078. To nominate Mr. Taft required 540 delegates. 
Mr. Taft did not have this number of votes in the convention. 
Of the honestly elected delegates Mr. Roosevelt had a decisive 
majority. 

How was Mr. Taft to be nominated? Not by a minority, 
that was clear. He had been unable to win a majority. That 
majority had to be found. 

The national committee, bound to Mr. Taft by Federal 
patronage and all the ligaments and prepossessions of machine 
politics, proceeded to find it. In one Indiana contest affidavits 
were filed showing that a majority of the entire number of 
delegates constituting a district convention had not voted for 
the Taft delegates who presented false certificates of election. 
At first it was decided to exclude such evidence. Then it was 
decided to receive the affidavits, but to ignore their contents and 
the facts which they incontrovertibly established, and seat the 
Taft delegates. It was so ordered. This was the case in the 
Thirteenth Congressional District of Indiana. 

The delegates elected from Texas were undeniably the 
regular and lawful delegates. But they were for Roosevelt. 
To have recognized their credentials from the republican state 
convention of Texas would have been tantamount to conceding 
Roosevelt’s nomination. It was not to be thought of. Without 
a qualm the national committee violated all its own precedents, 
and seated Taft delegates elected by a bolting minority from the 
State convention, in admitted violation of the Terrell Election 
Law of the state of Texas. 


6 

The committee met in an ugly temper on the morning of 
June 6. It had long been rumored, in fact it was openly charged, 
that their purpose was to count Mr. Taft in, by fair means or 
foul. They were not long in confirming suspicion as to their 
intent and purpose. 

The minority of delegates which Mr. Taft’s managers had 
gathered up in a raid through the rotten boroughs of Southern 
republicanism could not give him the nomination. That was 
clear. So the national committee, with letters of marque and 
reprisal from the President, started out like privateers to capture 
Taft delegates, wherever pretext could be manufactured or 
quibble invented. 

It mattered little that the great Republican States from 
which the party has always drawn its electoral strength had by 
huge majorities repudiated Mr. Taft’s candidacy. The national 
committeemen belong to the old school of politics. They believe 
in government by a representative part of the people.” They 
like the role of dispensers in their several states of Federal 
patronage. They did not propose to ‘‘ let go ” without a strug¬ 
gle. The new-fangled idea of popular primaries had never 
appealed to them. It was dangerous ” doctrine, this heresy 
that a national convention should register the will of the voters. 
Popular rule, so the committee felt, was an insolent intrusion 
by the people into the committee’s hitherto unchallenged au¬ 
tocracy. It must be sternly crushed. 

The task was congenial to the majority of the committee. 
A large number of its members were embittered by personal 
defeat. It was manifest to all that Mr. Taft, if nominated, 
stood no chance of election. His errors, his betrayals of the 
people, his partiality to special interest, his vacillations, his over¬ 
whelming repudiation in the pre-convention contest for dele¬ 
gates in the Republican States, left no room for doubt that he 
was a beaten candidate before the campaign could be opened. 
But the party organization remained, and the committeemen, 
although beaten and discredited, resolved to fight for their 
clutch on the party organization, as a nucleus for the reconstruc¬ 
tion of their shattered political power. In fact, the defeat of 
Mr. Taft was looked upon as not such a bad thing. It might 
be easier, these so-called leaders reasoned, to rebuild their local 
power after a defeat of the national ticket, instead of having 
to combat the vigorous resistance of a self-confident and victo¬ 
rious party, with anti-bossism one of its cardinal principles. 

While it was true that Mr. Taft’s nomination spelled party 
defeat, they themselves having been repudiated by their party, 
felt the temptation to retaliate against the Republican voters by 


7 

coupling with their personal disasters the defeat of the ticket, 
and thus invite the inference that the two results were related. 

Never before in the history of the Republican party did 
the national committee meet for the acknowledged purpose of 
forcing the nomination of a candidate already defeated, and of 
excluding from the program of the convention any measure or 
resolve that could make for the success of the party at the polls. 

For temporary chairman of the convention they selected 
the most conspicuous servant which the forces of privilege have 
ever found. They made no mistake. Some men might have 
revolted from the work assigned to Senator Root, but he leaped 
to the task, and surpassed even the expectations of his friends. 
The convention fairly gasped when he ruled that, notwithstand¬ 
ing the presence of a duly elected delegate in the convention who 
declined to vote, the convention could permit an alternate to 
vote in his stead. This actually happened, this monstrous ruling, 
on the call of the roll for the nomination of the President. The 
ruling was not made, however, until the State of Massachusetts, 
far down in the alphabetical order of states, had been reached, 
and not until it was possible, in making the ruling, to record the 
vote of a Taft alternate in place of a regular Roosevelt delegate. 

By this indefensible act Mr. Root made a personal con¬ 
tribution of two votes to Mr. Taft’s slender majority on the 
fraudulently padded roll. 

With these facts in mind it can readily be appreciated just 
how judicially disposed the national committee was when Mr. 
Rosewater, of NelDraska, making his farewell appearance as a 
member of the committee, brought his gavel down and an¬ 
nounced that the committee was now prepared to “ judicially ” 
examine and decide upon the claims of rival delegates, represent¬ 
ing Mr. Taft on the one hand and Mr. Roosevelt on the other. 

Their first business was to adopt a set of rules, and the 
most important rule proposed was that there should be no roll- 
call except upon a request concurred in by twenty members. 
They calculated that there were only about eleven or twelve 
members of the committee who were impartial or friendly to 
Mr. Roosevelt, and that by restricting roll-calls to requests by 
at least twenty members they were throwing a protecting pall 
of secrecy about their action, and could then do about as they 
pleased without bearing the burden or odium personally of their 
conduct. This proposal called out an eloquent protest from 
Senator Borah of Idaho. He insisted that a fairer rule in this 
respect should be adopted, and moved that a roll-call of the com¬ 
mittee be ordered if requested by ten members of the committee. 

The Constitution of the United States (Article i. Section 



8 

5) provides that the yeas and nays of the members of the House 
of Representatives and the Senate shall be recorded on the desire 
of one-fifth of those present. 

The rules of the New York State Assembly provide that 
the yeas and nays shall be recorded on the request of ten 
members, the Assembly having a membership of one hundred 
and fifty. 

Senator Borah, in behalf of his motion, said: 

“ I do not make this motion with any expectancy, even if it is carried, 
of assisting the candidate with whose interest it is known I am allied. 
I do not presume for a moment that it will result in the seating of any 
delegate who will not otherwise be seated, or of not seating any delegate 
who would otherwise not be seated. I understand perfectly that those in 
the majority here have the votes to seat whom they would seat, and 
will do so whatever the manner of procedure of this committee may be. 
I make this motion for another reason. We are representing here a 
great party organization. We are supposed to represent the millions 
who constitute the rank and file of the party. We meet under extraor¬ 
dinary conditions, and under circumstances in some respects most 
unfortunate. What we do, therefore, ought to be done in the open, and 
every vote recorded with an individual responsibility behind it. 

“ I cannot believe this committee is going to seat men who manifestly 
have no right to a seat, but if you are going to do so, for the sake of your 
party do it openly, and above board, and put your individuality and your 
courage, though in a bad cause, behind your vote. 

“ Are you ready to answer to your constituents when you go home ? 
Let's make a record that cannot be assailed at least for cowardice." 

According to the Chicago press accounts, at this point an 
effort was made to take Senator Borah off his feet by moving 
to lay the motion on the table. He said he would not submit 
to gag-rule, that he had a right to address the committee, and 
that he proposed to do so, so long as he was not physically taken 
out. A long wrangle and shouting of different people at the 
top of their voices continued, while the chairman in the mean 
time was putting the motion to lay Senator Borah’s motion on 
the table. He continued after quiet was regained, and said: 

“ What are you men afraid of ? What is it that you are going to do ? 
If these delegates are entitled to seats why should you conceal your 
record? Have you lost your courage? Are you ashamed of what is 
going to happen? I do not hesitate to say that men who have not the 
moral courage to record in the open every vote which they cast in a 
matter so vital to the party, are unworthy to represent the great Repub¬ 
lican organization. The man who has the legitimate majority of the 
delegates to this convention should be nominated, and when so nominated 
he will be loyally supported by all. But it doesn’t make any difference 
wh© is nominated, whether it be one candidate or another. If he is 
nominated by the seating of delegates whose seating you dare not defend, 
it will be a disastrous day when it is done." 


9 

It only remains to add the comment of the Chicago reporter 
who was at the scene, and who said: 

After Senator Borah concluded his plea, his proposal was steam¬ 
rollered—defeated by a viva voce vote.” 

Thus the number of members who might demand a roll-call 
remained at twenty. 

The vote of the committee denying the newspapers gen¬ 
erally access to their hearings, and restricting the channels of 
publicity to a handful of press association representatives, was 
another step taken at the outset which gave a significant clue to 
the committee’s program. 

But there was no need to depend upon mere clues or sug¬ 
gestions or inferences from such acts as above related for 
knowledge of the committee’s purposes. In the Chicago Tribune 
of June 8 the following conversations between members of the 
committee were reported: 

“ While the Ninth Alabama contest was under consideration Senator 
W. Murray Crane suggested to several members of the committee that it 
would be wise tactics to seat the Roosevelt delegates. 

“ ‘ Big Steve ’ Stephenson of Colorado, who holds a proxy from 
former Senator Nathan B. Scott of West Virginia, is reported to have 
replied: 

“‘We can’t afford to let them have it. We might be able to spare 
two votes now, but we must look ahead to the time when we will have 
to give them something. We can’t do it now.’ 

“ When the ninth district contest was settled by a vote of 38 to 15 in 
favor of the Taft forces. National Committeeman Mulvane, an ardent 
Taft man, of Kansas, said to a man friendly to Col. Roosevelt: 

“ ‘ Now you fellows have got an inkling of what you are going to 
get. Are you going to waste our time going over all these contests ? ’ 

“ ‘ What do you fellows intends to do? ’ Mulvane was asked. ‘ You 
know you surely can’t elect Taft.’ 

“ To which Mulvane is said to have responded: 

“ ‘ We can’t elect Taft, but we are going to hold on to this organiza¬ 
tion and when we get back four years from now we will have it and not 
those d-insurgents.’ ” 

These are not pleasant facts to dv^ell upon, and we will 
leave the discredited national committee to the indignation of 
the great political party it has compromised and betrayed. 





THE CONTESTS 


INCLUDING SOME OBSERVATIONS ON THE SO-CALLED 
“TAFT DEFENSE" 

The contests instituted on behalf of the Roosevelt delegates 
involved two hundred and thirty-eight delegates. A large pro¬ 
portion of these contests originated in the southern states, and 
were in the nature of protests against the fraud and corruption 
which have characterized the party administration in the south¬ 
ern states for more than a generation. The republican party 
in many of the southern states, like Alabama and Louisiana, is 
a “ ghost ” party, polling an inconsiderable number of votes, and 
really a mere name, continued in the interest of a little clique of 
Federal office-holders who maintain a sham party organization 
as a side adjunct to their business of absorbing local Federal 
patronage. These conditions have recently been the subject of 
telling exposures in Collier's Weekly. 

The temptation to use these readily controlled political 
machines has proven more than the administration in Wash¬ 
ington could apparently resist, and there has been an intimate 
connection between the organization of fraudulent Taft con¬ 
ventions in the southern states and the bestowal of rewards in 
the shape of local Federal appointments. 

These conditions have long been a scandal in the party, 
and attempts have been made in the past to reduce the repre¬ 
sentation of the southern states in the national convention. In 
the state of Louisiana, for instance, the republican party does not 
poll enough votes to meet the definition of the Louisiana statutes 
of a political party, and yet the state has a representation in the 
national convention almost equal to that of great republican 
states like Minnesota and California, with their hundreds of 
thousands of voters. 

These southern states never cast an electoral vote for a 
republican candidate for president, and yet through the operation 
of Federal patronage give to a president seeking renomination 
upward of two hundred votes in the nominating convention, 
which can be readily controlled, although representing no 
republican thought, sentiment, or voting strength. Taft received 
244 votes from such southern states. He could not have spared 
the single democratic state of Alabama, nor Virginia, nor 
Georgia. 

So low is the vitality of the republican party in these south¬ 
ern states that these conditions have been suffered to continue 
without effectual protest for many years. 


10 


II 


This year the candidacy of Theodore Roosevelt and his 
strong support by the progressive republicans seemed to give 
promise of more honest conditions at the convention, and to in¬ 
dicate that, despite the failures of the past, a protest against 
these intolerable conditions, if made before the Chicago con¬ 
vention, might secure consideration and lead to recognition of 
the true sentiment of the convinced and genuine republicans of 
the south. 

In many of the southern states the formalities in relation to 
the call of the conventions were wholly disregarded. Conven¬ 
tions were held without notice, or upon irregular notice. The 
participation of the voters in the choice of local delegates was 
not desired nor sought; but, on the contrary, every fraudulent 
device was employed to exclude such participation. This did 
not prevent the manufacture of artistic credentials. The ma¬ 
terial recitals entering into sound credentials were unhesitatingly 
embodied in the certificates of election, but in many cases these 
certificates contained false recitals of fact. The most effective 
instrument of party regularity in the south is still the type¬ 
writer, and from an analysis of the tribunal to which these 
contests were referred it is apparent that superficial regularity 
on the part of Taft delegates was all that was needed. 

The so-called official statement issued over the signature 
of the defeated national committeeman from Nebraska, Mr. 
Rosewater, speaks slightingly of the Roosevelt contests. These 
contests were brought in absolute sincerity and good faith, and 
in no instance were they devoid of merit and genuine equity. 
In several contests the national committee voted with unanimity, 
but this was due to the fact that in the conscientious opinion of 
the Roosevelt members of the committee, although impressed 
with the equities of the Roosevelt cases, it was felt that the 
proofs had not been brought to a degree of affirmative pre¬ 
ponderance sufficient to overcome the artful surface appearance 
of regularity which the facile coiners of Taft credentials uni¬ 
formly contrived to give to their cases. 

This disposition on the part of Roosevelt men not to allow 
their preferences for Mr. Roosevelt to sway their judicial con¬ 
sideration of the contests, and their determination to be just 
in cases of doubt or insufficiency of proof, even to the Taft side, 
were without effect upon the unrelenting majority of the Taft 
steam-roller. 

To the disinterested examiner of the contests, however, 
this concurrence by the Roosevelt committeemen in certain 
detached cases must give all the greater weight to their dissenting 
votes in those pivotal contests where the equities of the Roosevelt 


12 


contests were unanswerable, such as in Washington, Texas, 
California, and Arizona. 

Time and space forbid a detailed enumeration of the false 
assertions contained in the Taft defense. Where downright 
misstatement is not possible, resort is had to disingenuous sug¬ 
gestion and deceptive form of statement. For instance, on page 
four of the Taft defense the statement appears that “ in no other 
convention was so much care exercised or so much time devoted 
to the investigation of contests.” This statement is amusing 
when compared with the motion that was actually made in the 
credentials committee that the time taken for a roll-call could 
be saved if the secretary was directed to record the vote as 
uniformly given on prior contests without continuing the 
formality of actually taking the vote. 

And again, a line or two further, appears the statement that 
no delegate was permitted to vote upon any contest affecting the 
right to his own seat.” This is an extraordinary assertion in the 
light of the minority report of the credentials committee, in 
which a protest is filed against the following members of the 
credentials committee sitting and participating in the action of 
the committee, to wit: 

Mr. J. C. Adams, of Arizona; 

Mr. C. A. Warnken, of Texas, and 

Mr. W. T. Dovell, of Washington, 
for the reason that these men were elected by entire delegations 
whose seats were contested. 

Again a protest was made against the same gentlemen par¬ 
ticipating in and voting upon the questions in any of the contests, 
upon the ground that they were in effect sitting as judges in 
their own cases. 

A further protest was made b}^ the minority of the creden¬ 
tials committee against Mr. Thomas H. Devine, of Colorado, 
chairman of the credentials committee and one of the signers 
of the so-called Taft defense; against Mr. Fred W. Estabrook, 
of New Hampshire; Mr. Henry Blun, Jr., of Georgia; Mr. 
L. B. Mosely, of Mississippi, and Mr. L. P. Shackleford, of 
Alaska, from sitting on the committee, for the reason that they 
were members of the national committee and participated in its 
deliberations and actions, and therefore should not be permitted, 
as members of a court of appeal, to sit in review of their own 
prior decisions. 

There were only two roll-calls on the contests in the con¬ 
vention, involving two delegates from California and two from 
the ninth district of Alabama. In these cases a mock concession 
to fairness was made in a rule which prohibited a delegate from 


13 

participating in the convention vote of over a thousand, on a 
Qontest affecting that delegate’s seat. But the Taft defense 
does not say, what is very material in this connection, that the 
entire body of fraudulently seated delegates, bound together by 
the solidarity of mutual wrong-doing and the sense of common 
fraudulent interest, were permitted to vote. 

On page thirteen of the labored Taft defense appears in 
italics the statement in reference to the bolting Taft convention 
in Arizona, that “ if only the uncontested delegates in the Taft 
convention had been permitted to vote, the Taft delegates would 
have been in the majority,” and this is cited in support of the 
equities of the Taft delegates from Arizona. But no mention 
is made in the account of the Indiana contest of the fact that 
if only the uncontested delegates in the Indiana state convention 
had voted, the Roosevelt delegates would have been elected by 
a clear and decisive majority. In Indiana the Taft delegates 
were only elected by padding the convention roll with one hun¬ 
dred and twenty-four contested delegates, and then permitting 
the latter to vote in favor of the retention of their seats. 

Speaking of the Indiana contest on page eighteen, a ref¬ 
erence is made to the Indianapolis Star as having “ been neutral 
in the contest between Taft and Roosevelt.” Not so neutral as 
Taft’s defenders would have it appear. The Indianapolis Star, 
in its editorial columns on March 27th, thus reveals its “ neu¬ 
trality ” in an editorial assailing the election of the Taft delegates 
by the Indiana state convention. Speaking of the “ flaw in their 
title,” the Indianapolis Star says: 

“ Much as the Star desires the nomination and reelection of Presi¬ 
dent Taft, it greatly regrets that the verdict of Indiana republicans in 
his favor could not have been straight and clear.’" 

A newspaper is neutral, it would appear, in the Taft opinion, 
when it is honest. If it had defended the dishonest action of the 
Indiana state convention it possibly might fall in the category of 
a pro-Taft newspaper. 

The disingenuousness of the Taft defense is shown in their 
statement of the California contest. The misstatement is con¬ 
tained therein to the effect that the result in the fourth California 
district was certified by the registrar of voters of the city and 
county of San Francisco, but the further information is not 
vouchsafed that this certification of the vote in the fourth 
district was thereafter canceled and rescinded as being not only 
incorrect, but, by reason of local conditions, impossible. There 
were fourteen precincts in this district which overlapped the 
adjoining district, the fifth, and it was impossible to determine 


14 

what the actual vote was in the district for the Taft and Roose¬ 
velt delegates, who were candidates under the provisions of the 
state law, for election as delegates-at-large. 

Again, on page sixteen, it speaks of the decision of the 
California contest as dictated by a precedent laid down in the 
national convention of 1880. In 1880, however, there was no 
question of a state election law involved, nor of a popular pri¬ 
mary, resulting in a majority of 77,000, which it was necessary 
for the national committee to get around and disregard. Analogy 
must be closer than this to constitute a precedent. 

But the Taft defense says on page 18, still speaking of 
California; 

“ It is absolutely irrelevant to the question at issue how much ma¬ 
jority the Roosevelt ticket had in the state at large.” 

In this admission is contained the key to the whole policy 
of the Taft majority on the national committee. Again and again 
the attorneys for the Taft contestants or contestees, in cases 
where the proof showed an overwhelming vote and sentiment 
behind the Roosevelt delegates, assured the national committee 
or the credentials committee that the Taft credentials were all 
regular, that the Cs were crossed and the i’s were dotted, that the 
call had been copied into the minutes of the convention, and that 
everything had been done according to rule. To the steam-roll¬ 
ing majority on both the national and credentials committees this 
seemed to determine the question. They also thought it abso¬ 
lutely irrelevant to the question at issue how large a majority the 
Roosevelt delegates in contest might have behind them. 

In the Texas case the Taft defense opens with the statement: 

‘‘ The issue as to the eight delegates-at-large from the state of 
Texas is not merely a political one, but a moral one.” 

No disinterested man who examines the Taft statement of 
the Texas case would undertake to defend the national com¬ 
mittee’s action. Taft’s apologists beg the whole question in the 
sentence above quoted, that the issue is a moral one and not a 
political one. They can only mean that, conceding that the Roose¬ 
velt delegates from Texas were the legally elected delegates, they 
should not have been chosen on moral reasons. In other words, 
that there were reasons extraneous to the regularity and legality 
of their election which should control. 

This was precisely the point argued before the national com¬ 
mittee. It was conceded that the Taft delegates from Texas were 
irregular, that they were elected at a bolting convention held by 


15 

an inconsiderable minority of the delegates elected to the state 
convention. The regular convention had elected Roosevelt dele¬ 
gates by a vote of 162 to 13. There were only 27 of the 249 
Texas counties which had instructed for Taft, and of these 27 
counties the delegates representing 13 participated in the regular 
state convention. It was, nevertheless, insisted that the Roose¬ 
velt delegates did not represent the true republican sentiment of 
the state. This was the whole Taft case in the state of Texas. 
However, on that point we have the statement of D. G. Ruggles, 
editor of the Houston Daily Post, published in the Brooklyn 
Bagle of July 28th, attempting the justification of the national 
committee. The editor of the Houston Post, however, says in 
his statement: 

“ Were Theodore Roosevelt in Texas and facing a presidential pri¬ 
mary, he would doubtless carry the state as far as republicanism is con¬ 
cerned, even Taft republicans will acknowledge.” 

It would thus appear that the '' moral ” question disappears 
before admitted fact, and that the contention of the Taft defense 
is overruled even by the Taft republicans in Texas. 

There was but one question on which the decision of every 
contest hinged. Were the contestants for Taft or were they for 
Roosevelt? If for Roosevelt, a pretext must be found for ex¬ 
cluding them from the convention. If they were for Taft, it 
didn’t make any difference what pretext was selected, they were 
promptly seated. 

In the Texas case it was claimed that the republican organi¬ 
zation of Texas was standing in the way of republican growth in 
Texas. Figures were presented contrasting the vote of the re¬ 
publican party in 1896 with the vote cast by the republicans in 
the last gubernatorial election in Texas. 

If a lawyer in court made such a use of statistics or data 
he would be rebuked and disciplined. The manifest intention is 
to deceive. It is well known that in 1896 hundreds of thousands 
of Democrats throughout the country deserted their party for 
the purpose of putting down the free silver heresy and of saving 
the country from Bryan. The Taft defense contrasts the vote 
in Texas of 65,000 for Taft in 1908 with 26,000 cast by the 
republican party in the election for governor in 1910 as an argu¬ 
ment for ignoring the republican organization, the regularity of 
its convention, and the legitimacy of its election. 

The same argument, if applied to President Tafts own state 
of Ohio, where in 1910 the republican party, handicapped by 
Taft’s record, lost the governorship and control of the state by 
approximately 100,000 votes, although the party had carried the 


i6 

state two years previously for the national ticket, would have 
resulted in the exclusion of the fraudulent delegates-at-large from 
Ohio, elected at a state convention held a few days after Roose¬ 
velt had swept the state of Ohio by a majority over Taft of nearly 
50,000. 

We ask the question, does Mr. Taft think the state conven¬ 
tion of Ohio, which gave him six delegates-at-large, represented 
the republicanism of Ohio? If it did not, should not his delegates- 
at-large from that state have been unseated on the considerations 
advanced in his interest in the Texas case? 

But the national committee cared nothing for consistency. 
They were there only to seat Taft delegates and to exclude Roose¬ 
velt delegates. In Washington it was conceded that Roosevelt 
had carried every primary overwhelmingly. It was conceded that 
the Roosevelt delegates were in a majority in the state convention. 

In this case, however, the national committee decided, not¬ 
withstanding that the Taft convention represented only a minor¬ 
ity, that it was regular, and that, notwithstanding the majority 
behind the Roosevelt delegates, their convention was irregular 
and they were merely bolters. 

It is impossible for the national committee to have been 
right in both the Texas and Washington cases, as the reason 
adopted for one decision was rejected in the other. 

In the Indiana case the Roosevelt minority on the national 
committee concurred in the vote to seat the Taft delegates because 
the decisive votes in the state convention were cast by delegates 
who had been chosen at a so-called primary election. 

It was conceded by the Taft men on the committee that the 
primary had been characterized by wide-spread fraud, intimida¬ 
tion, and repeating; but it was claimed that the proof of fraud 
did not affirmatively establish that a sufficient number of votes 
should have been rejected for this reason to have reversed the 
primary result. The Roosevelt men on the committee, looking 
ahead to the later cases in which the title of Roosevelt delegates 
was derived from popular primaries, decided in the Indiana case 
to stand by the basic principle of the authority of the primary, and 
concurred in the vote. 

But when the steam-rolling majority of the national com¬ 
mittee encountered a primary in which Roosevelt delegates had 
been elected by a majority of 77,000, as in California, they dug 
up as a pretext for unseating the Roosevelt delegates from the 
fourth California district a precedent from the national conven¬ 
tion of 1880, in conflict with the statute law of the state of 
California, and established as a precedent at a time when the 
primary had not been introduced as a method of electing dele¬ 
gates. 


17 

Upon the moral question which receives so much stress in 
the Taft defense in the Texas case, we have the word of the 
New York World, applying to the moral question of Taft’s can¬ 
didacy in its entirety, and not to any specific contest. Says the 
New York World: 

“ Morally, the Taft administration has been rejected by the repub¬ 
lican party.” 

In a recent issue the Detroit News said, referring to the 
Chicago convention: 

“ There were ten men at the republican national convention in 
Chicago writing for the Detroit Nezvs. All of these men are writers of 
wide experience in political affairs, some of them having attended every 
national convention for twenty years. Each was at liberty to write re¬ 
ports of events just as he saw them. Two have a dislike for Theodore 
Roosevelt that amounts almost to a hatred, but every one of the ten 
agreed on one proposition. It was, that William Howard Taft did not 
have enough duly elected delegates to control the convention and nomi¬ 
nate himself.” 

The question as to the good faith and honesty of the national 
committee’s disposition of the contests is not worthy of serious 
consideration. 

The impartial observers of events at Chicago were the news¬ 
paper correspondents. Collier’s Weekly, in its issue of July 29th, 
under the caption '' The Stolen Delegates,” publishes the follow¬ 
ing extracts from various newspapers the country over, and en¬ 
titles its page: “ Comment on the illegality of Taft’s nomination 
from newspapers of every shade of political belief.” 

The Spokane Spokesman-Review. 

There is no “bluff” back of the Roosevelt contesting delegation 
from Washington. . . The people of Washington know—and none more 
than the Taft machine leaders—that Colonel Roosevelt is entitled to the 
fourteen votes from this state. 

Chicago News. 

The victor at the end was as lonely as Robinson Crusoe. He had 
been renominated by representatives of a minority of the republican 
party. He had been given a majority of the delegates by unscrupulous 
work on the part of the old national committee, now dead. Much of 
this work was so scandalously bad that it could not be condoned by the 
progressives who were its victims. 

Newark (N. J.) News. 

There is no mistaking the validity of Roosevelt’s claim to be the 
chosen leader of the majority of the rank and file of those who vote 
customarily under the republican emblem. His defeat at the convention 
has been at the hands of a minority and by the arbitrary rulings of a 


i8 

political committee irresponsible to the party voters. The rulings oi 
the committee were not even consistent, except on the ground that 
wherever Taft could be given a delegate, that was the thing to do. 

Richmond Time:s-Dispatch. 

With Crane and Penrose in control at Chicago, with Ryan and Mur¬ 
phy in control at Baltimore, why should not the independent voter feel 
that a third party is his only salvation? Whose fault will it be if the 
democratic party is split in two? And what wdll Virginia say of her 
share in that business? 


Daddas Morning News. 

The fundamental and sufficient cause of this secession was not the 
ambition of any man or of any set of men, but the conviction, wide-spread 
and deep in the masses of the Republican party, that their loyalty to that 
party was being used by a coterie of bosses to serve corrupt ends, that 
they were being betrayed by the very men who were foremost in preach¬ 
ing the virtue of loyalty. Coming to Chicago with a minority of the 
rotes, despotism and fraud were resorted to to supply what votes the 
cause needed to make it dominant. 

Harteord Times. 

Defend the procedure there as much as Chairman Roraback and 
others may please, and the fact remains that seventy-two of the dele¬ 
gates, whose seats were in dispute, were allowed to sit in judgment on 
their own credentials. Might just as well have a thief sit in the jury 
box, so far as fairness and equity are concerned. 

The Springfield Republican. 

There has never been a time when the republican party pretended 
to make its national nominating conventions representative necessarily 
of the majority sentiment of republican voters. 

Sioux City (Iowa) Tribune. 

The same kind of a deal in a legislature would have opened the 
doors of the penitentiary for the men making it. It was as corrupt as 
anything that was done in the election of Lorimer. Abe Ruef never 
planned anything more atrocious against the public. Roosevelt could 
not connect himself with such corruption. 

The New Orleans Item. 

Mr. Roosevelt had the republican masses behind him. Mr. Taft had 
the levers of the party’s machinery in his hands. The band of self- 
seekers behind Mr. Taft, who have discredited the republican party, 
with this machinery at their command, have been able to steal a presi¬ 
dential nomination belonging to Mr. Roosevelt and bestow it on Mr 
Taft. 

Los Angeles Tribune. 

Thus, delegates seated by fraud, in the interests of a candidate igno- 
miniously rejected, became the instruments whereby the will of a legiti¬ 
mate majority was nullified. . . , Thieves were named to make up a 

majority of a committee that was to try them, and the progressives 
rightly refused to act with the thieves. 


19 

La Crosse (Wis.) Tribune. 

Of the two men who engaged in this fight, Roosevelt enjoyed the 
greater popularity. He might have been elected President. That Taft 
cannot be is conceded by many who helped force his nomination. Yet 
these men said to the progressive republicans: “You must swallow Taft 
and wreck the party.” If the great mass of republicans who have been 
in the fight for truly representative government take the bosses at their 
word, the wreck will be upon the heads of those who in the interest of 
minority rule have pulled the pillars from beneath the temple. 

Chicago Evening Post. 

In our judgment, that nomination was a tainted nomination. There 
were in it trickery and fraud. Stripped to its practical essentials, it was 
a nomination made by a minority instead of a majority. . . . The 

miserable twenty-one votes above the nominating point which the “ steam 
roller ” drivers were able to muster fade instantly away under scrutiny 
from any standpoint of representative determination. 

The San Francisco Bulletin. 

California indorses the third party, founded by the honest majority 
of the recent republican convention and submitted to the people of the 
United States by its progressives. California indorses Governor John¬ 
son’s brave stand, not only in fighting the thieves to a finish, not only 
in refusing to be bound by the action of a stolen convention, but in leav¬ 
ing that fraudulent convention and taking the leading part in forming 
a new party and carrying out the will of our 77,000 majority by nomi¬ 
nating the man wanted. 


Chicago Tribune. 

The suicidal success won in a fraud-packed convention by the dis¬ 
credited remnants of standpat leadership in the republican party has 
served only to throw into higher relief the progressive leadership of 
Theodore Roosevelt. No other man in public life could have accom¬ 
plished what he has done in the preconvention fight. 

Kansas City Star. 

The enthusiastic determination of the people to elect a progressive 
President in spite of the fraud workers of the national committee in 
Chicago is the most natural thing in the world. Being overwhelmingly 
progressive before that crime against popular government was perpe¬ 
trated, the people are logically now more strongly than ever determined 
to control their government. 

It is impossible within reasonable compass to present the 
Roosevelt side in more than a few of the cases. The following 
have been selected not because they are the most flagrant in¬ 
stances of high-handed injustice on the part of the national 
committee, but because the facts in the cases lend themselves 
most readily to reasonably brief statement. They are sufiflcient. 
President Taft was nominated by twenty-one votes—or by 
nineteen, if the two from Massachusetts are omitted, which were 
counted only by the extraordinary ruling of Chairman Root, 


20 

that when a delegate answers “ Present, but not voting,his 
alternate shall be allowed to vote—always providing that alter¬ 
nate is a Taft man and the delegate is a Roosevelt man. 

Taking only four of the cases hereinafter cited, namely, 
California, Arizona, Washington, and Texas at large, these 
cases in their narrowest application cover thirty votes. The 
change of these thirty votes would have defeated Taft and would 
have reversed all the important actions of the convention. 


THE CALIFORNIA CONTEST 

The action of the Convention sustaining the prior action of 
its Credentials Committee and of the National Committee in 
seating two contesting Taft delegates from the State of Cali¬ 
fornia was productive of more bitter and outspoken resentment 
than any other one of the series of high-handed acts committed 
in Mr. Taft’s interests. 

When the Progressive Republicans of California were swept 
into power in 1910, as the result of a great protest against the 
domination of the State by a corrupt ring which had held sway 
for many years, they found a law upon the statute-book which 
would have enabled their leaders to select arbitrarily, as formerly 
had been done, a full quota of delegates to the National Conven¬ 
tion. The Progressive Republicans determined, however, not¬ 
withstanding the possession of this power, to yield it in favor 
of a popular Presidential preference primary as being more in 
accord with the temper of the people and the principles for which 
the Republican party stood. Accordingly a Presidential prefer¬ 
ence primary law was passed, whereby the choice of a full 
delegation from the State of California was to be determined 
by a popular State-wide primary vote. 

Mr. Taft, Mr. TaFollette, and Mr. Roosevelt filed the 
statement required by the California primary law, announcing 
themselves as candidates for the votes of the people, which could 
only be cast under this law, and accepting the provisions of the 
law, and agreeing to abide by the popular verdict. Mr. Taft 
on May 12, two days before the primary election was held, 
addressed a message to the voters of California in which he said: 

“ On the eve of your Presidential primary in California I venture 
to appeal to the Republican men and women who exercise the franchise, 
to consider fairly well the legislative and executive achievements of my 
administration, and especially those which have affected California, and 
say whether they do not deserve the approval of California. 



21 

I submit a record is formed that entitles this administration to 
the support of the Republican men and women of California, and that 
It is progressive to the highest degree.” 

The election was held. Twenty-six delegates were voted 
for throughout the State of California. None were nominated 
or voted upon as district delegates. Each, under the provisions 
of the law, agreed to abide by the operation of the law, and 
became a candidate for delegate under the terms of the law. 

The result was an overwhelming expression of popular 
preference for Mr. Roosevelt. He received 146,000 votes; Mr. 
Taft, running second to him, received only 69,000 votes. The 
result was conclusive. It was acquiesced in by all, even up to 
a time several days subsequent to the convening of the national 
committee in Chicago. 

The first premonition that there would be an attempt to 
unseat any of the California delegates elected by a majority of 
77,000 voters was in the form of a tentative announcement 
before the national committee by counsel, suggesting that 
California might be the subject of a contest, and asking that 
it be postponed until the National Committee had neared the 
completion of its hearings, as it was conceived to be likely that 
a question affecting two of the Roosevelt delegates might be 
presented to the National Committee. 

The mere suggestion called forth indignant protests from 
all quarters. This was steam-rolling with a vengeance. It was 
‘no ordinary convention contest, involving the usual questions 
as to whether the call of a county convention was regular, or 
whether the chair had the right to fill vacancies on a district 
committee, or whether the place of meeting had been duly 
designated, or the notice published as required by law. These 
are favorite stand-bys of delegations which rely upon steam¬ 
rolling majorities in the national or credentials committees. 
The question involved in California was, shall a national com¬ 
mittee flout the mandate of 146,000 republican voters in a great 
republican state? Not one of the southern states, where the 
republican party for years has been a byword and a jest; not a 
rotten borough, but a sovereign Republican state, whose elec¬ 
toral vote has been cast many times for the candidate of the 
republican party, and whose vote the success of the party in 
any close election may absolutely hinge upon. 

But the rumor that the national committee intended to 
edit and revise the result of the California primary was per¬ 
sistent. At first it was not believed. It did not seem possible 
that folly and callousness could go so far. The sentiment of 
the delegates to the convention was so angry, however, that the 


22 


assurance was spread about that if, on a later calculation of the 
Taft strength in the convention, it was found that the votes 
which it had been determined to take from Roosevelt and 
transfer to Taft, from the California delegation, were not 
needed, the convention might later bow gracefully to the storm 
of public indignation and reverse the action of the national 
committee, thereby gaining some credit before the people for 
impartiality. This point of security, however, the Taft forces 
never reached, and they were obliged to stand squarely upon 
their record of discreditable conduct. 

Under the law of California, as of several other states, 
the method of electing delegates to nominate a presidential 
candidate is exactly analagous to the method of choosing electors 
to elect a president. The delegates favoring each candidate 
are placed on the ballot in a single group, and are voted on by 
the State at large. This law passed the California legislature 
by unanimous vote, and was accepted by all parties and factions. 
The Republican candidates, including Mr. Taft, personally 
signed their approval of the several groups of delegates running 
in their names. The election was regularly held under the law, 
and the tw^enty-six Roosevelt delegates received and filed their 
certificates of election from the Secretary of State. There was 
no dispute of their election under the law. The contest was on 
the law itself. 

The convention call of the national committee provided 
that the election should be by districts, while the law of Cali¬ 
fornia required it to be by the State at large. The delegates, 
therefore, were elected at large, but on the issue being raised 
on two of the twenty-six delegates from California, the national 
committee put its call above the law, and reversed the result of 
the election. 

Even aside from this nullification of the law, the California 
contest rested on no basis of fact. The Roosevelt delegates 
carried every county but one in the state, and received decisive 
majorities in all the congressional districts but one. In the 
fourth district, comprising roughly the northern half of the 
city of San Francisco, the margin was so close that it would 
depend on the votes of fourteen border precincts, casting 1,685 
Republican votes, which were situated partly in the fourth and 
partly in the fifth district. The registrar of voters of San 
fourth district, or who received a majority in that district. The 
committee, however, disregarded these certificates, and rested 
FVancisco and the Secretary of State both certified that it was 
impossible to tell how many of these votes were cast in the 
instead on a previous certificate, issued by the Secretary of State 


23 

by mistake, and subsequently revoked by him, and on this flimsy 
basis concluded that the twenty-six Taft delegates had received 
a few more votes in the district than the twenty-six Roosevelt 
delegates. Three of the Taft group and three of the Roosevelt 
group happened to be residents of this district, so the Committee 
arbitrarily chose two of these three Roosevelt delegates for 
rejection, and substituted for them as arbitrarily two of the three 
defeated Taft delegates—and not the ones who had the highest 
votes. The decision was based on neither law nor facts, since 
it was in direct repudiation of the law, and had no facts other 
than guesswork as to the vote, and arbitrary selection as to the 
individuals. The committee arrogated to itself a power which 
the Supreme Court of the United States has refused to exercise 
in analogous cases, and erected its temporary convention call 
into an authority over the election of delegates greater than that 
which the Constitution of the United States possesses over the 
selection of electors. 

The California case clearly was the most far-reaching in 
its significance, because while it directly affected only two votes, 
the principle enunciated in it would destroy the entire system of 
Presidential primaries. The national committee bluntly de¬ 
cided in this case that it would nullify any state primary law 
which did not coincide with the terms of the committee’s 
convention call. As convention calls are sure to differ from 
year to year, and those of one party from those of another, while 
state laws differ in one state from another but must be uniform 
in each state as to all parties, it follows that it must be beyond 
human ingenuity to devise a system whereby all state laws in 
all parties will coincide with the convention calls of all parties. 
The only principle on which the primary system can survive at 
all is that the laws of each state shall prevail as to the elections 
in that state. This principle the national committee squarely 
overthrew in the California case, and the new national com¬ 
mittee. which will exercise the same powers in 1916, has ex¬ 
plicitly taken the same ground as its predecessor. 

When the California contest was called. Governor Hiram 
Johnson of California declined to appear before the national 
committee. He refused to recognize that there could be any 
contest affecting the delegates from the fourth California dis¬ 
trict. He addressed a note to the national committee in which 
he said: 

“ I will not submit the title of property to a trial by the thief who 
steals it. I consider it would be an insult to the people of California for 
me to appear before a committee which obsequiously receives Calhoun’s 
Hogue, or even listens to a contest by Patrick Calhoun designed to over¬ 
ride a majority of 77,000 Republicans, before a committee which has 
pre-judged the contest.” 


24 

Resolutions adopted by the California delegates were 
presented “ condemning as a betrayal of trust, a violation of the 
precepts of decency and honor, and as an intentional assault 
upon the integrity of the Republican party, the outrageous 
conduct of the national committee, and the discredited and 
repudiated bosses now dictating and controlling that committee, 
whereby delegates chosen by the people in their respective States 
in the interest of Theodore Roosevelt are being denied seats in 
said convention, while their places are given to hand-picked 
machine puppets chosen by the bosses in the interest of William 
H. Taft.’^ 

The resolutions further called upon the California delegates 
to go to the limit of honorable endeavor to rebuke the tactics 
complained of, and to fight to the last for Roosevelt, a pro¬ 
gressive ticket, and the progressive cause. 

Mr. Francis J. Heney, who was present in the committee- 
room, was asked by National Committeeman Chubb of Florida 
if he was present to argue the California cases. “ No,’^ said 
Mr. Heney, I have come here for the purpose of apprising the 
President that he is accepting stolen goods if he takes these 
delegates when you give them to him.” 

A motion was made by Mr. Estabrook, of New Hampshire, 
to seat the Taft delegates, so-called, from the fourth California 
district. 

Senator Borah of Idaho offered as a substitute a motion 
that the Roosevelt delegates should retain the seats to which the 
California Republicans had elected them by a majority of 77,000. 

A roll-call on Mr. Borah’s motion was requested and re¬ 
fused, under the rule which required the concurrent request of 
twenty members to obtain a roll-call. A roll-call, however, was 
permitted on the Estabrook motion, and resulted in thirty-seven 
affirmative votes to seat the Taft men, and sixteen negative votes. 

In the debate which took place over the fourth California 
district. President Taft’s procedure was defended by Senator 
Murray Crane and Senator Boise Penrose. 

There was present in a private conference-room near the 
committee-room during the debate, and while the vote was going 
on, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury R. O. Bailey, as w^ll 
as the President’s private secretary, Charles D. Hilles, and Sec¬ 
retary Nagel of the President’s Cabinet. 

Reports of the progress of the discussion before the 
national committee were from time to time borne to this group 
of conferees in this side room, and when the result was reached 
it was hailed by the personal representatives of Mr. Taft with 
every manifestation of satisfaction and approval. Thus was 
the fraudulent result wrought in his behalf ratified and adopted 
by Mr. Taft. 


THE TEXAS CONTEST 
Delegates-at-Iarge 

Eight delegates-at-large from the State of Texas, headed by 
Cecil A. Lyon, were unseated by the national committee by a 
viva voce Yoit, after refusing the request of Senator William E. 
Borah, of Idaho, for a roll-call. The action was taken shame¬ 
facedly, nervously, and hurriedly, and it was manifest to every 
one who had followed the flimsy argument put forward by the 
contesting delegation, and who heard the unanswerable argu¬ 
ment made on behalf of the regular delegates who were unseated 
by the committee, that the vote was in clear and conscious dis¬ 
regard of the merits of the case. Hon. Timothy L. Woodruff, 
ex-Lieutenant-Governor of the State of New York, a member 
of the uninstructed New York delegation, who had repeatedly 
declared that he was for Taft, at the announcement of the vote 
on the Texas contest, said that he was so strongly moved by 
the injustice of the committee’s action that he would hence¬ 
forth not be for Mr. Taft, if nominated by a convention whose 
temporary roll was thus made up. 

The Texas delegation was absolutely essential to the nomi¬ 
nation of Mr. Taft. How essential it was recognized as being 
appears from the fact that the national committee violated all 
the precedents it had itself established in other contests, disre¬ 
garded the law of Texas relating to the election of delegates to 
a State convention; ignored the unassailable regularity of the 
Texas State convention, and of the credentials it had issued to 
delegates elected by it, and now finds itself in the peculiar posi¬ 
tion of having discredited the convention by which the electors 
on the Republican ticket in the State of Texas were chosen, and 
whose places on the official ballot at the approaching November 
election will be due exclusively to the regularity which the na¬ 
tional committee invaded and disregarded. 

Texas has two hundred and forty-nine counties. Two hun¬ 
dred and eight counties duly elected delegates to the State con¬ 
vention that was held in the city of Fort Worth on May 28, 1912. 
The remaining forty-one counties are either not organized under 
the Texas laws, or are not organized under the rules of the Re¬ 
publican State Executive Committee of Texas, or failed to pre¬ 
sent proper credentials within the specified time. Contests were 
presented to the executive committee, acting as a credentials 
committee in accordance with Texas law and party usage, from 
seventeen counties. 


25 


26 

These contests were referred to sub-committees of three 
members each, and on each sub-committee both the Taft and 
Roosevelt forces were represented. The reports of the sub¬ 
committees were unanimous with the exception of one sub¬ 
committee in which the Taft member presented a minority 
report at variance with the majority conclusion in respect to con¬ 
tests affecting two counties. As a result of the investigation of 
the contests, by a vote of twenty-eight to two, the State executive 
committee seated Taft delegates from four counties. Four other 
counties were divided between Taft and Roosevelt delegations. 
In nine counties the Roosevelt delegations were seated. 

The temporary roll of the state convention was adopted by 
the state executive committee by a vote of twenty-eight to two, 
the twenty-eight including three Taft supporters. The conven¬ 
tion duly assembled in accordance with the notice duly given, in 
the Savoy Theater, at Fort Worth, on May 28th. The tempo¬ 
rary roll was adopted by the convention unanimously, one hun¬ 
dred and seventy-two votes being cast out of a possible two hun¬ 
dred and eleven. Delegates to the national convention were se¬ 
lected and instructed for Roosevelt by a vote of one hundred and 
sixty-two and three-fourths against thirteen and one-fourth. 
Thirteen of the twenty-seven counties that had previously been 
instructed for Taft were included in this vote, and only fourteen 
counties of the two hundred and eight which had legally and duly 
participated in the selection of delegates to the convention were 
absent from the State convention. In all calculations the forty- 
one unorganized counties are ignored. 

The delegates thus elected were chosen in accordance with 
the terms of the call of the Republican National Committee, with 
the laws of the State of Texas, and the long-existing and un¬ 
questioned usages of the Republicans of the State of Texas, and 
presented duly drawn and executed credentials certifying these 
facts to the national committee. 

But the votes of the Texas delegates were needed to nomi¬ 
nate Mr. Taft, and this is the way the trick was done. At 9.30 
A.M., on May 28, 1912, a group of Taft delegates, including a 
number of contesting delegates who had been denied seats in the 
State convention by votes in which Taft members of the State 
executive committee had concurred, met in caucus at Byer’s 
Opera House. It was not claimed by the Taft people that more 
than eighty-nine people participated in this caucus. They pro¬ 
ceeded to select delegates to the national convention, whom they 
instructed for Taft. 

It was conceded before the national committee by the Taft 
contestants from Texas that the Texas State convention was ab- 


27 

soluteiy regular, and that the decision of the seventeen contests 
filed did not and could not possibly affect the majority of the 
State convention or its proceedings. The contestants based their 
entire claim to seats as delegates to the national convention upon 
the proposition that they represented the true Republican senti¬ 
ment of Texas, and that the regular State Republican convention 
did not represent the true Republican sentiment. 

They also assailed the Texas statute known as the Terrell 
law, which provides that every county shall have at least one 
vote in a State convention, and said that it was an unfair basis 
of representation. This contention is hardly worthy of dis¬ 
cussion, because it is concededly not sanctioned by the law of 
Texas. It is clearly at variance with the Terrell law, which 
prescribes as a matter of law how the delegates to a party State 
convention shall be selected. There is no option under the Ter¬ 
rell law. The course adopted by the regular Republican State 
convention was the only course that they could have pursued 
legally under the Texas law. To have acted in any way other 
than they did would have been to expose themselves to attack 
upon the ground that their action was contrary to law, and 
therefore invalid. 

The law alluded to is as follows: 

“ Chapter 177, Laws 1907, p. 328, Sec. 2, amending Sec. 120 of ‘ An 
Act to regulate elections, &c.’ of the First Called Session of the 29th 
Legislature, Chap, ii, i. 1905, p. 520. 

“ ‘ Each county in the State or district convention shall be entitled 
to one vote for each 500 votes or major fraction thereof cast for the 
candidates for Governor of the political party holding the convention 
at the last preceding primary election. In case at such primary election 
there were cast for such candidates for Governor less than 500 votes in 
any county, then all such counties shall have one vote.’ ” 

But the Taft contesting delegates proceeded on the proposi¬ 
tion, successfully advanced to the national committee, that no 
matter what the law was, it ought to be something different, and 
as a matter of fact it had to be something different or Mr. Taft 
could not have got the Texas delegates. Necessity knows no 
law, not even the Terrell law of the State of Texas. 

So what did they do? There was the Terrell Election Law 
written large upon the statute book of the State of Texas. A 
regular convention from which the little minority of Taft men 
had bolted, had made up its roll in honest conformity with the 
law. If the bolters had observed the law, their total vote for 
delegates would have been contemptibly small, and would have 
given their case away. So they resolved to do the only other 
thing. 


28 

The only course open to the Taft bolters was to deny the law 
of their State. This they proceeded to do by a resolution of their 
own little committee, in which, after reciting that “ the party 
machinery established by law and usage must yield to this great 
principle ” (i. e., the nullification of the law of the State as to 
the basis of representation), they went on to say, “ Nothing is 
politically right which is morally wrong.” Then followed this 
statement, palpably false in view of the terms of the law above 
quoted: “ The law leaves to the lawful machinery of the party 
the question of establishing a fair basis of the representation of 
the vote.” And having thus wriggled and twisted in order to 
evade the plain meaning of the law, they concluded by saying 
“ We do not think that the vote for Terrell for Governor was in 
any measure expressive of the Republican sentiment of this 
State.” 

There you have it. The law ? Repealed by rhetoric! Em¬ 
barrassing facts? Abolished by resolutions! The recorded Re¬ 
publican vote for Governor at the last election, defined by law 
as the basis of representation ? It can’t be denied, so disregard 
it! If in the opinion of a bolting minority their convention will 
look better if the basis of representation is one hundred instead 
of five hundred votes as prescribed by law, declare a preference 
for the smaller basis of representation and substitute it for the 
statute law of Texas. 

Thus having stacked the deck they proceeded to deal. 

When the case was presented before the national committee, 
the chairman, Mr. Rosewater, was quick to stop Mr. Lyon, Re¬ 
publican State Chairman of Texas, the moment his brief allot¬ 
ment of time had expired. Mr. Francis J. Heney, of Cali¬ 
fornia, and Senator William E. Borah, of Idaho, endeavored 
unsuccessfully to ask some questions, with a view of clarifying 
the case. Mr. Francis B. Kellogg succeeded in bringing out by a 
question that the interpretation of the Terrell Election Law on 
which the regular Republican State convention had been called, 
and which is above set forth, is the official interpretation, based 
upon an opinion of the Texas attorney-general. It was made 
clear that the minority members of the only committee that made 
a minority report on contested delegates to the State convention, 
remained in the State convention, recognizing its regularity, and 
taking part in all its proceedings. It was not contended that any 
possible disposition of the contests could have affected the de¬ 
cisive majority in favor of Roosevelt, Roosevelt delegates, and 
Roosevelt instructions. 

Senator Borah and Governor Hadley, of Missouri, made it 
clear by questions they asked, that the designation of Republican 


29 

electors in the State of Texas rested upon the regularity of the 
state convention which had elected delegates to the national con¬ 
vention ; that the list of Presidential electors chosen by the State 
convention had been filed with the Secretary of State of Texas; 
that the names on that list would be on the ballot at the No¬ 
vember election, and that the law of Texas provides that only 
such electors can be placed upon the official ballot. 

As was said by Mr. Lyon, at the close of the argument: 

“We have the sworn statement of that convention from start to 
finish, the credentials of every county sworn to. These delegates are 
here. What are you going to do ? Take two men who took a brass band 
and went down the street and gathered together a mob and took them 
to another place to make a State convention ? Men who didn’t even ap¬ 
ply for admission, who don’t have the credentials filed in their alleged 
convention? Are you just going to take any bunch of people walking 
down the street ? ” 

As above stated, the effort of Senator Borah to have a roll- 
call was not sustained by the national committee, which proceed¬ 
ed hurriedly to a vote, to have done with the disagreeable busi¬ 
ness. Mr. Francis J. Heney, in explaining his vote, said: 

“ Mr. Chairman, I desire in explaining my vote to say that this is 
not plain stealing. This is treason to the republic. This is the most 
shameless proceeding I ever saw in my life, Murray Crane, and you are 
a party to it. Shame upon you.” 

Senator Borah then said: 

“ Mr. Chairman, I know that this committee can prevent me from 
saying anything if it desires to, and I am not going to run contrary to 
it, but I would like to say a word.” 

At this point he was interrupted by Mr. Mulvane, who said: 
“ We have so much on our hands.” 

Senator Borah then said : 

“ I know we have a great deal on our hands, and we will have a 
great deal more after this national convention adjourns, but I do want 
to say—” 

Here again Senator Borah was interrupted, and finding 
that he was not to be permitted to go on, he said: 

“The motion is not debatable, I know, unless this committee con¬ 
sents to its debate, and I am at your mercy.” 


30 

On a viva voce vote the regular delegates elected by the only 
Republican convention held in the State of Texas were unseated, 
and an improvised delegation, picked by an inconsiderable mi¬ 
nority, admittedly bolters from the regular convention, with no 
color of representative choice or of regularity of selection or of 
organic relation with the Republican party of the State of Texas, 
but pledged to Mr. Taft, were seated in the national convention. 


THE TEXAS DISTRICT CONTESTS 

The national committee, having in the disposition of the case 
of the delegates-at-large risen superior to the restrictions of the 
Texas statutes embodying the election law, and having thrown 
off the trammels of party regularity and disregarded an unmis¬ 
takable Texas majority for Roosevelt, made short work of the 
district contests. If you can get to the point where you have nul¬ 
lified a statute by a typewriter, and feel that only a bolting minor¬ 
ity can represent the true party sentiment, it is an easy matter, as 
it proved, to resolve the Texas district contests in favor of Taft 
without any justification whatever. The following is a brief sum¬ 
mary of the contests affecting the district delegates from Texas: 

FOURTH DISTRICT. 

On May 17, 1912, the congressional committee met. Con¬ 
testing delegations came from two precincts which had been de¬ 
nied admission to the county conventions of Collin and Grayson 
Counties, at their respective county conventions, applied for ad¬ 
mission as delegates to the congressional convention, claiming to 
be the duly accredited delegates from Grayson and Collin Coun¬ 
ties. Their claims were denied by the congressional committee. 
The convention was then organized. Four out of five counties 
took part. Delegates were elected favorable to Roosevelt. 

Later, at some other time and place, the fifth county, which 
was not represented in the regular convention, perhaps assisted 
by the contested delegates from the two precincts who were de¬ 
nied admission as above stated, held a separate convention. There 
was no bolt from the regular convention of any kind, as is at¬ 
tested by affidavits of every delegate present. Affidavits are also 
presented from every delegate to every county convention in the 
district, showing that in no county convention in the district was 
there any bolt, split, or secession at the time the conventions were 
held, which elected delegates to the congressional convention. 



31 

FIFTH DISTRICT. 

There are five counties. The congressional committee con¬ 
sisted of five members. Three of these were Taft men. This 
committee seated Roosevelt delegates from three counties, where¬ 
upon the unseated delegates from two counties bolted and organ¬ 
ized a rump convention. The delegates from Ellis County in¬ 
structed for Taft participated in the regular convention. 

SEVENTH DISTRICT. 

Six out of eight counties went for Roosevelt. When the 
congressional executive committee was called, the congressional 
chairman refused to recognize four Roosevelt members of the 
executive committee, although they had been elected to office or 
appointed to fill vacancies as appointed by law. Whereupon 
delegates from six out of the eight counties convened in a con¬ 
vention and elected Roosevelt delegates. 

EIGHTH DISTRICT. 

Six out of the nine counties were for Roosevelt. Two of the 
counties which were for Taft bolted the convention and held a 
separate convention, their only excuse being that they could not 
control the regular convention. 

NINTH DISTRICT. 

In this district a county chairman endeavored to call a con¬ 
gressional convention, although a regularly called convention sum¬ 
moned by the congressional chairman was held. The regular 
congressional convention was held at Yoakum, and was partici¬ 
pated in by the majority of the county delegates in the district, 
and a majority of the congressional executive committee recog¬ 
nized this convention as regular. 

TENTH DISTRICT. 

In this district there are eight counties. The delegates from 
two and a half counties bolted from the congressional conven¬ 
tion under the leadership of the United States internal revenue 
collector, “ What-are-we-here-for ?’’ Flannigan, and the post¬ 
master of Austin. This rump convention elected as one delegate 
a man who had refused to bolt and was the regular congressional 
chairman of the district. Nor did the member of the state com¬ 
mittee—a Taft man—bolt from the regular convention. 

FOURTEENTH DISTRICT. 

Of the fourteen counties that met in convention, there was 


32 

only one contest, Bear County. The congressional executive 
committee, being one man from each county, seated both Roose¬ 
velt and Taft delegates, and gave them half a vote each. The 
Taft delegation, and two other counties out of the fourteen, 
bolted and elected contesting delegations. 

With practically unvarying vote, the steam-rolling majority 
of the national committee decided all of the foregoing contests 
in favor of the Taft delegates. The result, after the national 
committee finished its work, was that Taft had twenty-eight of 
the Texas delegates and Roosevelt had twelve. 

It is interesting to recall, in view of the theory of the Taft 
contests in Texas, that the Taft delegates represented the repub¬ 
lican sentiment of the state, what the editor of the Houston 
(Texas) Daily Post said, as recently as July 28th, and quoted 
above: 

^^Were Theodore Roosevelt in Texas and facing a presi¬ 
dential primary, he would doubtless carry the state as far as re¬ 
publicanism is concerned, even the Taft republicans will acknowl¬ 
edge.” 


WASHINGTON CONTEST 

In Washington no method is prescribed by law for choosing 
delegates to the state convention, but a wide discretion is given 
to the state and county party committees in that respect. The 
state committee has made no rule and provided no method for 
choosing such delegates, but has left the manner of selecting 
delegates from each county to the county party committee in 
each county. 

This year the county committees in the principal counties 
of the State—such as Spokane, Pierce, King, and Whatcom— 
duly adopted resolutions providing for the choosing of delegates 
in these counties by the people at primary elections. Such 
elections were duly held, and full Roosevelt delegations were 
chosen. In Spokane the Republican primaries were a landslide 
for Colonel Roosevelt. The Spokesman-Review of May 3d, 
commenting upon the Spokane primary, said: 

The victory of the Roosevelt forces was so overwhelming that it 
was even beyond the most extravagant claims or hopes of the local 
managers of the Roosevelt campaign. Before the primaries the Roosevelt 
leaders were claiming the city two to one for Roosevelt, and added that 
they would not be surprised if it went three to one. The result shows 



33 

that on delegates it went better than eight to one for Roosevelt. Coupled 
with this, the outlying towns went six to one for Roosevelt, while the ru¬ 
ral precincts went better than seven to one. The primary vote was one of 
the heaviest in the city’s history.” 


And commenting editorially on the primary election, the 
Spokesman-Review on May 4th said: 

At the Republican primaries Thursday every voter was given the 
opportunity to express his preference for President. The Republicans 
of Spokane County, by the manner in which the primaries were con¬ 
ducted, have placed themselves in the front rank of the great army of 
progress. There will be no talk of jobbery or back room politics in 
connection with the Spokane primaries. The issue was put squarely 
up to the people, the people spoke, and the majority rules.” 


The number of delegates to the State convention was 668. 
Of this number, 263 uncontested delegates favorable to Roose¬ 
velt and 97 uncontested delegates favorable to Taft were chosen. 
In twelve counties having 304 delegates there were contests. 
In order to get a majority in the State convention, the Taft men 
had to secure not less than 238 of the 304 contested delegates. 
One of the contested counties alone. King County, in which the 
city of Seattle is situated, had 121 delegates. There a primary 
election had been held, at which the popular vote in favor of 
Roosevelt had been about eight times the vote for Taft. Never¬ 
theless, it was indispensable for the Taft forces to have the 
King County contest decided in favor of Taft, because if the 
121 Roosevelt delegates from King County were seated, these 
delegates added to the 263 uncontested Roosevelt delegates would 
give the Roosevelt men 384 out of the 668 delegates to the State 
convention—a safe majority. 

The facts in regard to the King County contest are these: 
The county committee, as previously stated, under the law could 
itself name delegates to the State convention, or could call a 
convention to choose delegates. The law, however, gave this 
power to the county committee, and not to any minority thereof. 
The King County committee is a large body of about three 
hundred members. In 1910, for the purpose of facilitating the 
conduct of the campaign, the full committee appointed a sub¬ 
committee of twenty-two men to act as an executive committee. 
With the close of the 1910 campaign this sub-committee’s duties 
Avere at an end. A majority of the men who composed this sub¬ 
committee this year favored the nomination of Taft. A meeting 
of the full King County committee to decide upon the action to 
be taken with reference to the selection of delegates to the State 
convention was called on April 13, at 2 p . m . In advance of 


34 

the meeting the Taft leaders—Ballinger, Scott, Calhoun, and 
others—tried to influence the Roosevelt leaders to allow the 
naming of Taft delegates by offering to pay the debts of the 
committee which were either due to the Roosevelt leaders or 
for which they were liable, upon the condition that Taft dele¬ 
gates to the State convention should be named. This attempt 
at corruption failed, and the county committee at this meeting 
called a county convention to choose delegates to the State 
convention, and ordered a primary election to be held on April 
27 for the election of delegates to the county convention. The 
county committee also by vote put an end to the existence of the 
sub-committee previously mentioned. Immediately after the 
close of the meeting of the county committee twelve Taft men 
who were members of the defunct sub-committee, without notice 
to the other members, met and named one hundred and twenty- 
one Taft men, including such well-known reactionaries as R. A. 
Ballinger and former Senator J. L. Wilson and Samuel H. Piles, 
as delegates to the State convention. The King County contest 
was between one hundred and twenty-one Roosevelt delegates 
chosen in pursuance of the popular election which gave an over¬ 
whelming majority in favor of Roosevelt and the one hundred 
and twenty-one delegates named by twelve members of a com¬ 
mittee of three hundred. Two things are plain. First, there 
was a primary election in King County at which the wish of 
the Republican voters was expressed. Secondly, even if the 
people had no right to have their wish respected, and if the 
Roosevelt delegates were not entitled to sit in the State con¬ 
vention, the Taft delegates, arbitrarily hand - picked by an 
insignificant fraction of the county committee, had no shadow 
of right to credentials. 

The only way by which the Taft machine could control the 
State convention was by controlling the decision of the contests. 
This could not safely be left to the action of the convention, as 
had always been done in Washington before, because the Roose¬ 
velt men could control the convention. A method was therefore 
devised to meet the requirements of the situation by the action 
of the State committee, which was for Taft. On May 2 the 
chairman of the State committee, B. W. Coiner, a candidate for 
the vacant office of United States Attorney for the Western 
District of Washington, called a meeting of the State committee 
at Aberdeen on May 14, the day before the meeting of the State 
convention, for the purpose of passing on the credentials of the 
delegates to that convention. The call stated that this procedure 
was pursuant not to the custom of the Republican party in the 
State of Washington, but “ to the rules and customs of the 


35 

national organization of the Republican party.” This action 
of the State committee was pure usurpation. It had no warrant 
in the customs or assent of the Republican party in the State of 
ashington, and no justification under the law. The statute 
only gives the committee power to call conventions, not to organ¬ 
ize conventions. On the night before the meeting of the State 
committee twenty-one of the thirty-nine committeemen met in 
caucus and resolved to vote as a unit for the seating of a sufficient 
number of Taft delegates to control the convention without 
regard to the merit of the contests. A number of the com¬ 
mitteemen present at the caucus boasted openly of this arrange¬ 
ment. At the meeting of the State committee on the following 
day all the contests except those in Pierce and Clallam Counties 
were decided in favor of Taft. The right of the Roosevelt 
delegates—sixty-nine in number—from Pierce and Clallam 
Counties, where primaries had been held, was so clear that the 
committee ruled in their favor, there being no pretext whatever 
for ruling against them. On the basis of the State committee’s 
ruling, the Roosevelt men with the 69 delegates from Pierce and 
Clallam Counties added to their 263 uncontested delegates had 
332 of the total 688 delegates, and the Taft men had 336 dele¬ 
gates, including the 121 hand-picked delegates from King 
County. 

In order to bolt and rivet down their control of the conven¬ 
tion the State committee, at the meeting on May 14, took addi¬ 
tional precautions. They adopted a set of rules which were hur¬ 
riedly read once, placing the temporary organization of the con¬ 
vention entirely in the hands of the chairman of the State Cen¬ 
tral Committee, and provided that no delegate should be admitted 
to the State convention without a ticket signed by the chairman 
of the State committee. At no previous Republican convention 
in the history of the State of Washington had delegates ever be¬ 
fore been required to obtain tickets for admission to a conven¬ 
tion. The rules were not printed, and the committeemen gene¬ 
rally had no opportunity to examine or to understand them, and 
no Roosevelt member of the committee was able to secure a copy 
of the rules or to see them. 

The State convention was called to meet at 10 a.m. on May 
15. EflForts were made, beginning on the 14th of May, by the 
Roosevelt and Taft contingents to reach a harmonious under¬ 
standing as to the organization of the convention, and as to the 
disposition of the contests by the convention itself. A steering 
committee was appointed by each side, and the two steering com¬ 
mittees had full powers to negotiate from all the delegates whom 
they respectively represented. The situation was dangerous. 


36 

The governor of the state was aroused from his sleep at one 
o’clock in the morning of May 14 with an appeal to come to 
Aberdeen and try to restore order. He left his home in Olympia 
at five o’clock by automobile, and after a hurried trip to Aberdeen, 
immediately appeared before the committee and said, with sol¬ 
emn warning: 

“ The people demand fairness and justice, and an expression 
of their wish is your duty. Personally I am for Taft, but if the 
majority of the people feel that they prefer another man, it is 
your duty as a committee to carry out the wishes of the people.” 

On the morning of the 15th an agreement was reached 
between the two steering committees that contests where the 
merits were plain should be decided by the convention on their 
merits, and in cases of doubt both contesting delegations should 
be seated with a half vote for each delegate. In order to se¬ 
cure time to submit this agreement for ratification, it was 
agreed that the time for the meeting of the convention should 
be postponed from ten o’clock until one. Chairman Coiner 
himself promised to post a notice of the postponement on the 
do-or of the convention hall. A little after ten o’clock the Roose¬ 
velt delegates assembled in caucus, were informed that in viola¬ 
tion of this agreement the Taft delegates had gone into the hall, 
had organized themselves, and were acting as a convention. 
Thereupon the Roosevelt delegates immediately went to the con¬ 
vention hall. None of them had tickets of admission; only a 
few knew that tickets were required, and it was not possible for 
any of them to ascertain where tickets could be obtained. When 
they reached the convention hall they found that the main door 
was guarded by police; that all the other doors were locked, the 
fire-escapes had been removed, and the windows barred. Many 
uncontested Roosevelt delegates offered their credentials and 
asked to be admitted, but were refused admission because they 
had no tickets. On inquiry they were unable to learn where they 
could get tickets, and when they persisted in the attempt to go 
into the hall they were forcibly prevented and driven back to the 
street. The Roosevelt delegates then met in another hall, or¬ 
ganized themselves as a convention and elected delegates to the 
national convention. 

In the Taft convention there were present four hundred and 
one men, of whom only 97 were uncontested delegates, and three 
hundred and four contested. In the total number present there 
were included 69 delegates from Pierce and Clallam Counties, 
who the Taft State Committee itself had decided were not en¬ 
titled to credentials, and also 121 delegates from King County, 
who upon the undisputed facts had no' legal claim whatever to 


37 

seats in the convention. The roll of the Taft convention re¬ 
cited the presence of six delegates from Ferry County, although 
Richard Pierce, of Ferry County, with all the proxies from 
his county, went immediately to the Roosevelt convention on 
reaching Aberdeen, and took no part in the Taft convention. 
The roll of the latter convention also purported to include six 
delegates from Franklin County, although this delegation an¬ 
nounced to the Taft convention that it had come to the con¬ 
clusion that the Taft convention was not a representative Re¬ 
publican convention, and that the Franklin County delegation 
would withdraw, which it did. Thus, deducting the 69 dele¬ 
gates from Pierce and Clallam Counties, which the Taft Com¬ 
mittee had held to be without legal standing as delegates, and the 
twelve delegates from Ferry and Franklin Counties, it would re¬ 
duce the number of delegates, waiving all questions of contest, 
in attendance at the Taft convention to three hundred and twenty. 

In the Roosevelt convention there were 561 men in atten¬ 
dance, of whom 263 were uncontested delegates. In addition 
to the latter there were 69 delegates from Pierce and Clallam 
Counties who had been seated by the Taft State committee the 
day previous, and declared to be the legally elected delegates 
from those counties, thus making 332 delegates whose rights had 
been recognized by the Taft State committee. In addition there 
were 121 delegates bearing the mandate of the voters of King 
'County, and the 12 delegates from Franklin and Ferry Counties. 

It will thus be seen that the uncontested delegates at the 
Roosevelt convention were a clear majority of the total number 
constituting the membership of the State convention, and clearly 
outnumbered the delegates in attendance at the Taft convention 
for whom any pretense of legality could be urged. There were 
only 401 men in attendance all told at the Taft convention, and 
to establish the above assertion it is only necessary to deduct 
from that number the 69 delegates from Pierce and Clallam 
Counties whom the State committee itself had held to be without 
legal claim to sit as delegates, and the 12 delegates from Ferry 
and Franklin Counties, who were untruthfully recited as partici¬ 
pating in the Taft convention. 

As a further sidelight upon the so-called Taft convention, 
it only remains to refer to the statement of James A. Ford, special 
staff representative of the '' Spokesman-Reviezv” of Spokane, 
who attended the convention at Aberdeen, and publishes in his 
paper under his signature an account of the following conver¬ 
sation : 

“ Last Monday afternoon, the day before the meeting of the Repub¬ 
lican State Centra] Committee, while on the train for Aberdeen, four 


38 

of US were discussing the coming meeting of the committee, and what it 
would probably do. 

“ The other three members of the party were Senator W. H. Paul- 
hamus, of Sumner; J. E. Lease, a member of the State committee from 
Centralia, and Judge George Dysart, of Lewis County, who it subse¬ 
quently developed was to vote two proxies in the committee, of which he 
was not a member. 

“ Senator Paulhamus expressed the belief that the committee would 
be fair and that the machine politicians would not be able to line up 
a majority for their candidate. Lease said nothing. Dysart offered no 
comment, until I answered Paulhamus with the words, ‘ I doubt it. 
Senator.’ 

“Dysart immediately agreed to this statement. ‘You are right,’ 
said Dysart. * They are going to seat the Taft delegates. I was just 
talking over the telephone to Sam Perkins, and he told me the Taft 
delegation from Pierce County was to be seated.” 

The Spokesman-Review, in its issue of May i8, remarks 
editorially: 

“ It is evident from the tenor of the feeling prevalent over the high¬ 
handedness of the Washington Republican committee that the mass of 
Republicans are not going to sit supinely and allow the practical burglary 
of its delegation to be consummated before the Republican National 
Committee.” 

It appears, however, that they reckoned with undue confi¬ 
dence upon the national committee righting the wrongs of the 
Washington State convention. A few days after the National 
Republican Committee had brushed aside the abundant and over¬ 
whelming proofs of the facts above stated, and had seated the 
fraudulent delegation from Washington, the Spokesman-Review 
ceased its advocacy of Mr. Taft’s reelection, repudiated the 
nominees of the Chicago convention, and announced on its edi¬ 
torial page, in its issue of June 23, that henceforth it was en¬ 
listed under the Roosevelt banner.” 

The following press despatch, appearing in a New York 
paper, is a significant postscript to the Washington contest: 

“Washington, July 24.— Senator Poindexter to-day announced he 
would oppose confirmation of Beverley W. Coiner, of Tacoma, nomi¬ 
nated yesterday by President Taft to be United States attorney for the 
western district of Washington. 

“ Senator Poindexter has received telegrams from Roosevelt leaders 
in Washington urging him to fight the appointment. One of these tele¬ 
grams said: 

“‘President Taft’s nomination of Beverley Coiner as United States 
district attorney here adds insult to the injury done to the people of this 
state when Coiner engineered the stealing of our delegates. The ap¬ 
pointment is explainable only as a reward for the theft, and the pro¬ 
gressive republicans of Washington urge you to resist its confirmation.’ ” 


THE ARIZONA CONTEST 

The call by the State committee for a State convention to be 
held at Tucson, on June 3, 1912, to select six delegates to the 
Chicago convention, prescribed three methods of choosing 
county delegates to the State convention: 

1. The selection by the county committee. 

2. That the county committee might provide for a primary 
at which delegates were to be selected to a county convention, 
which in turn should select the delegates to the State convention. 

3. The selection by direct primaries of the delegates to the 
State convention. 

The choice of methods was left with each county for itself. 

The State call provided that the county committees should 
meet on the 15th day of May, severally to determine what method 
they would adopt; if by appointment by the committee, appoint¬ 
ment would be made at a meeting of the committee to be held on 
May 25; if the selection was to be by primaries, the primaries 
would be held on the 25th. 

For a quarter of a century it had been the custom and rule 
of the Republicans of Maricopa County to select their delegates 
by primaries. On the 15th of May, the county committee of 
Maricopa County met, and the credentials committee duly ap¬ 
pointed, threw out all proxies offered by both sides, for the rea¬ 
son that some were disputed, others conflicting, and at least one 
had got into hands to which it was not directed. 

The committee meeting was therefore confined to those 
committeemen actually present, who by a vote of twenty-two to 
nineteen, ordered primaries to be held, appointed a committee to 
arrange therefor, and then adjourned. The votes were all by 
roll-call, and all of the minority voted, including the vote on the 
motion to adjourn. So just was this action of the committee 
in calling primaries, that two members of the committee favor¬ 
able to Taft, joined with the Roosevelt forces, in voting for the 
primaries. 

Even if the proxies above referred to had been allowed, the 
Roosevelt forces would still have controlled sufficient votes to 
have obtained primaries. If it be claimed that the credentials 
committee should have allowed proxies, the only result of their 
action, even if a technical error, was to order public primaries, 
and thereby give the people an opportunity to express their Presi¬ 
dential preference. No one was injured by this action, and no 
person was deprived of any right. The Roosevelt men fought 
for popular primaries, and the Taft men fought to prevent them. 

The primary elections thus ordered were conducted with the 

39 


40 

greatest care and regularity by election officers of the highest 
standing in the community, and resulted in a vote of nine hun¬ 
dred and fifty-one for Roosevelt to eleven for Taft. Despite 
the efforts of the Taft people to prevent voters from attending 
the primaries, the total vote was eighty per cent of the maximum 
vote ever cast in the county at a Republican primary election. 
This primary resulted in the election of twenty delegates to the 
State convention called to meet at Tucson on June 3, instructed 
for Theodore Roosevelt. 

The alleged Taft delegates from Maricopa County were 
picked in a closed room, at a meeting of a minority of the county 
committee. That this so-called committee meeting, which hand¬ 
picked the Taft delegates, had not a quorum, was conclusively 
proved before the national committee to whom there was pre¬ 
sented a signed statement of thirty members of the county com¬ 
mittee, a decisive majority, that they did not attend the so-called 
committee meeting that selected the Taft delegates, either in 
person or by proxy. 

In Cochise County the facts are: 

The county committee met on the 15th day of May, with 
sixty - nine members out of a total membership of eighty, 
present either in person or by proxy, making a quorum, of which 
thirty-three Roosevelt members were present in person and thir¬ 
teen Roosevelt members were present by proxy, an absolute and 
legal majority of the committee, and also nine Taft members in 
person, holding fourteen Taft proxies. The chairman and sec¬ 
retary, Taft men, after the meeting had been legally opened, 
bolted, taking with them seven Taft committeemen and fourteen 
proxies. The remaining committeemen then went on wdth the 
meeting in regular order, electing a chairman and secretary, hav¬ 
ing a clear majority present in person or by proxy, and resoh ed 
that delegates be selected to the State convention at a meeting to 
be held on the 25th of May, as they were authorized to do by the 
call for the State convention. At the meeting held on the 25th 
of May, forty-seven members of the committee were present, 
in person or by proxy, being more than a majority of the mem¬ 
bership of the committee, wffio unanimously elected sixteen 
Roosevelt delegates to the State convention. The Taft minority 
committeemen who bolted the first meeting did not attend the 
second meeting of the committee, and whatever they did in the 
way of selecting delegates was clearly illegal. 

The executive committee of the State Central Committee 
was completely dominated by Taft officeholders. Shortly before 
the State convention met, this executive committee gave notice 
that it would meet on the ist of June (the convention to meet on 


41 

the 3rd of June); that credentials should be filed with it, and 
that it would determine contests for the purpose of preparing a 
roll-call for use in effecting the temporary organization of the 
State convention. This was unprecedented, and wholly beyond 
the authority and powers of the committee. The Roosevelt dele¬ 
gates, of course, refused to submit the question of the regularity 
and fact of their selection to a tribunal which tried to usurp 
the power to pass upon that question, and which unquestionably 
was pledged in advance to Taft. 

The State committee never before had assumed this power. 
At the only other time within twenty years that the question 
arose, the committee expressly refused to hear or determine con¬ 
tests for any purpose, and by resolution remitted the question of 
the right to seats in the convention, for the purpose of temporary 
organization, or otherwise, to the convention itself. This was in 
1896, and a convention then composed of both contested and 
uncontested delegates unanimously ratified the action of the 
State committee. When the chairman of the State committee 
called the convention to order, on June 3rd, he proceeded to read 
a roll of those whom the committee had determined should take 
part in the temporary organization, disqualifying the twenty 
Roosevelt elected delegates from Maricopa County, and seat¬ 
ing the Taft delegates, appointed by a minority of the Maricopa 
County convention, and giving a half a vote each to the Roosevelt 
and Taft delegates from Cochise County, and thus attempted to 
secure control of the State convention. The Roosevelt delegates 
naturally refused to submit to this action, and the State conven¬ 
tion split into two factions, each faction holding conventions 
simultaneously in the same hall, with their presiding officers on 
the same platform, and electing their own national delegates. 
The total membership in the State convention was ninety-six, of 
which forty-nine was a majority. There were present fifty-four 
delegates favoring Roosevelt, who were regularly and legally 
elected, it having been conclusively proven that the Taft dele¬ 
gation from Maricopa and Cochise counties were illegal. 

In view of the foregoing facts no fair-minded man can 
question the absolute justice and legal regularity of the six 
Roosevelt delegates to the national convention who were elected 
by the legal majority of the Arizona State Convention. 


FIFTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT 
OF LOUISIANA 


He who runs may read the story of fraud and dishonesty 
in the disposition of this contest. There is no mist of contro¬ 
verted fact about it, no indirection, no plausible assignment of 
grounds for the contest. 

A delegate duly elected at a regular district convention sub¬ 
sequently refused to pledge himself to vote for Mr. Taft in the 
national convention. Thereupon the Taft managers held an¬ 
other so-called convention, admittedly without notice, without 
pretense of observing due form or legality, and elected a delegate 
who would vote for Mr. Taft. At the regular convention two 
delegates had been elected, but only the delegate who had re¬ 
fused to sign a written pledge to vote for Mr. Taft was assailed 
by the subsequent hocus-pocus called a convention, and he alone, 
of the two elected at the regular convention, was replaced by a 
delegate who would “ vote right.” 

The regular convention for the election of two delegates 
and their alternates from the Fifth Congressional District of 
Louisiana was called to meet at Vidalia on April 29, 1912. At 
this convention Mr. W. T. Insley and Mr. S. W. Green were 
elected delegates to the national convention. It was conceded 
that the convention was held upon due and published notice; that 
credentials in due form certifying their election were issued to 
these men, signed by the chairman and secretary of the conven¬ 
tion. It was also admitted that the election of these delegates 
was conceded to be regular, and their standing as delegates was 
recognized by C. S. Hebert, the Collector of Customs of Louisi¬ 
ana, and the Taft campaign manager for that State. On May 
6th, a week after the regular convention, Mr. Hebert forwarded 
letters to be signed by Delegate Green and his alternate, Mr. J. 
W. Cooke, and then returned to him. The letters were in the fol¬ 
lowing form: 

“ Mr. C. S. Hebert, 

Taft Campaign Manager of Louisiana, 

New Orleans, La. 

Dear Sir: 

“ As one of the delegates from the Fifth Congressional District of 
Louisiana to the Republican National Convention at Chicago, I beg to 
say that I will vote for the nomination of President Taft, and with the 
entire Louisiana delegation as a unit.” 

Delegate Green refused to sign this pledge, and then for the 
first time it was “ discovered ” that there had been a state of in- 


42 


43 

undation prevailing in the region of Vidalia at the time of the 
convention, and although the convention had been generally at¬ 
tended by the delegates elected thereto and entitled to participate 
in it, it was decided that another convention should be called, not, 
however, for the purpose of electing a set of delegates in place 
of those elected at the regular convention, but only a delegate 
in place of Mr. Green, who had refused to pledge himself to Mr. 
Taft. Accordingly a convention was called, so it was alleged, 
to meet at Monroe on May 15. The prime mover in this second 
convention was the aforesaid Mr. Hebert, Mr. Taft’s campaign 
manager, and Collector of Customs at New Orleans. No notice 
of the second convention was published. Mr. Greene, the con¬ 
testing delegate, offered to withdraw his contest if any proof 
whatever was submitted to the national committee that any no¬ 
tice whatever had been published of the second convention held 
at Monroe. 

It was further proved that Mr. Hebert, although recogniz¬ 
ing the result of the regular convention to the extent of asking 
pledges in favor of Mr. Taft from the two delegates there elected, 
and although he had written the credentials for the regular con¬ 
vention, was the instigator and controlling hand in the second 
convention. 

It doesn't appear that anybody attended the second conven¬ 
tion ; in fact, its origin, proceedings and attendance are all rather 
mythical. The only thing that is quite specific about it is that it 
certified that the election of Mr. F. H. Cooke as a delegate in 
place of Mr. Green, who refused the Taft pledge, but it also ap¬ 
pears uncontroverted that Mr. Cooke had attended the first and 
regular convention, and had participated in that convention. 

Hon. Frank B. Kellogg, in questioning Mr. Cooke before 
the national committee, said: “ How many were there in your 
convention?” Mr. Cooke replied, “I don’t know.” Mr. Kel¬ 
logg then said, “ You don’t know? It is perfectly evident the 
other convention was the regular convention.” 

This was apparent to every one who heard the evidence. It 
was time to shut off discussion and get the voting done with. 
National Committeeman Kellogg asked for a roll-call. The re¬ 
quest was not sustained by twentv members of the committee. 
Mr. Chubb then moved that Mr. F. H. Cooke be seated in place 
of Delegate Green, who refused to pledge to Mr. Taft. The ayes 
had it. It was so ordered. 

The farcical court then called the next case. 


NINTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT 
OF ALABAMA 


The Roosevelt delegates were undoubtedly regularly elected. 
On this contest Hon. Frank B. Kellogg, of Minnesota, a member 
of the national committee, said, at the announcement of the vote 
to seat the Taft delegates: 

‘‘ The Ninth District of Alabama was a legitimate contest. The pre¬ 
sentation almost showed plain stealing on the part of the committee.’' 

This severe characterization of the committee’s action by 
Mr. Kellogg is abundantly justified by the facts in this case. 

The Roosevelt delegates and alternates were elected by a 
convention held on a call made by the regular Republican Dis¬ 
trict Committee of the Ninth Congressional District of Alabama, 
the regularity of which committee has not been questioned since 
its election by the Republican district convention on July ii, 
1910. The district committee held a regular session in the city 
of Birmingham on February 15, 1912, in which two Taft dele¬ 
gates awarded seats in the national convention were present in 
person and participated. The total membership of the district 
committee was twenty-nine, not including the chairman and 
secretary. There were present, answering to the roll-call, twenty- 
six members of the committee in person, and two by proxy, 
making twenty-eight members in all, not including the chairman 
and secretary. 

Hardly had the proceedings of the committee been opened 
when ex-U. S. Judge Oscar R. Hundley, who had obtained the 
floor by recognition of the chairman, was interrupted by John 
McEniry, a member of the committee, who being reminded that 
Judge Hundley had the floor, and that the chair would not recog¬ 
nize another speaker until Judge Hundley had relinquished the 
floor, abruptly announced, “ Then we will leave you.” There¬ 
upon twelve members of the committee, including Mr. McEniry, 
left the committee and held a separate session in the rear of the 
same hall. 

The eighteen members of the committee who remained 
were a majority of the whole committee, and a quorum thereof. 
They proceeded in an orderly manner to transact the business 
before the committee, which included the permanent organiza¬ 
tion of the committee, and the issuance of a call for the district 
convention for the purpose of electing delegates and alternates to 
the Republican national convention. After the proceedings 
which were stenographically taken were transcribed, they were 

44 


45 

signed in due and proper form by the chairman and secretary. 
A majority of the committee then elected delegates and alter¬ 
nates in due and proper form, and prepared a temporary roll 
for said district convention, and on such roll-call there were 
resignations and appointments made to fill vacancies. The resig¬ 
nations were all made in due form, and the appointments were 
all made by the chairman, under authority conferred upon him 
by the Republican district committee of the Ninth Congressional 
District of Alabama, on July ii, 1910, and also by the Republi¬ 
can District Executive Committee on June 22, 1911. 

On motion duly seconded and unanimously carried, the con¬ 
vention thus called, duly elected Oscar R. Hundley and George 
R. Lewis as delegates to the Republican national convention 
from the Ninth Congressional District of Alabama. These dele¬ 
gates were unseated by the national committee in favor of Taft 
delegates, who were elected at an irregular convention called by 
the minority of the Republican District Committee, which bolted 
from the meeting of the full district committee held at Birming¬ 
ham as above described. These Taft delegates came to Chicago 
clothed with typewritten certificates, testimonials, credentials, at¬ 
testations, etc., but not enough to conceal the fact that they de¬ 
rived their election from a convention called by a bolting mi¬ 
nority of the district committee, and had not a color of right to 
recognition as delegates by the national committee. 

The vote of the national committee was thirty-eight for seat¬ 
ing the Taft delegates and fifteen for seating the Roosevelt dele¬ 
gates. Mr. Frank Lowden, of Illionis, and Mr. Victor Rosewa¬ 
ter, the chairman of the national committee, broke away from 
their Taft associates in the national committee, and in this case 
voted with the Roosevelt men. 

There is no occasion to add to the characterization of this 
case by Hon. Frank B. Kellogg as '' plain stealing.’’ 


FIRST CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT 
OF ARKANSAS 


The First Congressional District of Arkansas comprises the 
counties of Clay, Greene, Craighead, Mississippi, Crittenden, 
Cross, Poinsett, St. Francis, Lee, Phillips, and Woodruff. These 
counties lie in the eastern part of Arkansas, extending along the 
Mississippi River almost two-thirds of the distance from the ex¬ 
treme northern boundary of the State to its southern boundary. 
Owing to the large number of negroes residing in this district, 
it is commonly referred to as the “ Black Belt ” of Arkansas. 
At least seventy-five per cent of the Republicans residing in this 
district are negroes. 

Nowhere is the variety of expedients resorted to by the 
Taft machine men to frustrate a true expression of the voters, 
and by hook or crook obtain a choice of delegates favorable to his 
candidacy, more simply and at the same time more strikingly 
shown than in this district. 

The Congressional committee of the district, composed al¬ 
most wholly of postmasters and Federal officeholders, and in 
charge of the Republican machinery, called a convention to meet 
at the town of Paragould. This town is in the extreme northern 
part of the district, near the Missouri line, and is notorious in 
the South for a bloody intimidation practised upon the negro, 
which has continued for many years. No negro is allowed with¬ 
in the town limits. Signs are posted in conspicuous places warn¬ 
ing them not to tarry, under penalty of violence. It is as much 
as a negro's life is worth to venture within the town of Para¬ 
gould, and of course the delegates to the Congressional conven¬ 
tion, consisting, owing to the nature of the population of the dis¬ 
trict, of a large percentage of negroes, were by the simple pro¬ 
cess of appointing the convention to be held in such a town as 
Paragould, excluded from attendance at the convention and par¬ 
ticipation in its action. 

The barefaced character of this disfranchisement of Re¬ 
publican electors is made more manifest by a glance at the map 
of the district which shows that there are far more important 
towns in the district, centrally located, such as the city of Helena, 
easily accessible by rail, and where the negro delegate might 
come without danger to his life. 

The illegal delegates elected in the Taft interest from the 
First Arkansas district were seated, notwithstanding these glar¬ 
ing and admitted facts. 


46 


THE 13th INDIANA CONGRESSIONAL 
DISTRICT 


The district convention met at Warsaw, Indiana, on April 2, 
1912. The membership of the convention consisted of 142 dele¬ 
gates, which was the number in attendance. A. G. Graham, of 
South Bend, a Taft man, and Aaron Jones, a Roosevelt man, 
were nominated for permanent chairman of the convention. 
Graham was elected by a vote of 71 Jones received 70 
votes. This vote, however, did not represent the relative strength 
of the Taft and Roosevelt forces in the convention, as was soon 
apparent when the chairman called for nominations by coimties 
of members of the various convention committees. The votes 
were announced as they had been announced on the election of 
chairman, and immediately great confusion resulted, the chair¬ 
men of the various county delegations demanding that their 
delegations be polled and the chairman of the convention, Mr. 
Graham, steadfastly refusing these demands. 

In this state of confusion, the chairman, with the aid of a 
few men who stood close to him, proceeded to railroad through 
the election of delegates to the national convention. Without any 
audible nominations or roll call, and without any intimation to 
the general body of the convention as to what was taking place, 
suddenly Mr. Graham, the chairman, and his secretary abandoned 
the stage and, announcing that the proceedings were concluded, 
left the convention hall. A quorum of the delegates remained on 
the floor of the convention hall and then proceeded in an orderly 
manner to nominate and elect delegates to the national conven¬ 
tion. The delegates thus elected were F. W. Kellar and P. R. 
Judkins. 

There were offered to the national committee, in support of 
their claims as delegates, affidavits made by a majority of the 
entire body of delegates constituting the district convention, to 
the effect that they were present at the convention and voted for 
Mr. Kellar and Mr. Judkins as delegates to the national conven¬ 
tion. Three additional affidavits were offered on the part of other 
delegates to the district convention, who swore that they had not 
voted for Mr. Fox and Mr. Studebaker, who were certified by the 
officers of the district convention to have been elected. 

The affidavits further stated that the chairman of the district 
convention, without a call of the roll and in the midst of con¬ 
fusion, declared that Mr. Fox and Mr. Studebaker had been 
elected, although they had not been either nominated or voted 
upon. 


47 


48 

The affidavits thus offered were conclusive proof that the 
results certified to the national committee could not have been 
duly reached. The affidavits were incapable of being contro¬ 
verted, being made by a majority of the whole number of dele¬ 
gates constituting the membership of the district convention. The 
possibility of answer was excluded. When the affidavits were 
offered to the national committee a spirited debate ensued as to 
their admissibility, which is illuminating as to the attitude of the 
national committee. Mr. Francis B. Kellogg, in the course of the 
debate, said: 

“ Mr. Chairman, I hope this committee will receive these affidavits. 
I have never served on this committee but twice. I hope I won’t serve 
again in the contests that come before the committee. I have no recol¬ 
lection of this committee ever enforcing that rule before. We certainly, 
since we have been sitting here last week, have received affidavits. We 
have received ex parte statements. We have received newspaper clip¬ 
pings, and we have received statements from outside parties here, no 
notice of which was given to the other side, nor copies, nor any informa¬ 
tion given to the other side, over and over again.” 

Later Mr. Kellogg said, in the course of the debate: 

“It does seem as though this committee ought to arrive at these 
facts and give the other side time to rebut them if they can, but don’t 
shut out those affidavits because they were not given to the other side 
when we have not required it in any other case.” 

Senator William E. Borah read from the affidavits under 
discussion, as follows: 

“ Chairman Graham remained on the platform for a short time 
thereafter, and while he so remained no audible report was made by any 
counties of rulings on credentials, no nominations for delegates, or alter¬ 
nates to the republican convention from said district were made that 
were in any way audible to the delegates on the floor of the convention 
and none such were voted upon by any at the said convention.” 

Senator Borah then said: 

“ Now, Mr. President, I have very great respect for the veteran 
member from Arkansas, and I do not wish to say what I say in invidi¬ 
ous criticism of what he has just said, but, Mr. President, I am one of 
those who believe that we ought to look beyond the convenience of the 
men who sit at these tables and to make as nearly as we can a record 
which no one will have a right to challenge in the convention, and cer¬ 
tainly which cannot be carried into the open arena between now and the 
ninth of November to work to the detriment of whoever that nominee 
may be. 

“Talking plainly to the majority of this committee, I have no doubt 
that the majority of this committee are in favor of the nomination of 


49 

Mr. Taft for President, and if that be true, they are far more concerned 
in having the world know that he was nominated by men who had not 
been fraudulently elected to this convention than the men who will be 
defeated in the coming convention. 

“ There is no one so thoroughly concerned in the success of this 
committee and in its ability to make its report stand criticism as those 
who are in the majority of this committee and who claim to be in the 
majority of the coming convention. Every one here knows what my 
alliances are so far as the conditions before this convention are con¬ 
cerned, but I believe that you feel, if you will stop to think, just as I feel 
that these questions rise above the rights of any individual, and are 
higher than the call of any man for the honor which is to be conferred 
by that convention. 

“ The question which we will have to meet from the time the con¬ 
vention closes until the day in November rolls around is whether or not 
the nominee of this convention received it at the hands of honestly 
elected delegates or of delegates who had been seated in contravention 
to the instruction of the masses of the people who sent them there. We 
may hark back to precedents and call attention to things which have 
happened in the days which have gone by in a justification of what is 
to transpire here in this committee, but we must bear in mind that we 
are meeting in the convention of 1912 under conditions that we have 
never met before in any convention, and surrouned by environments 
which have never surrounded any other political convention; it is in the 
air that the contest from the time the convention closes until the votes 
are counted in November will be the most severe and the most difficult 
to take care of by reason of the conditions in the country at this time 
of any contest which has happened since Lincoln was elected the second 
time as President of the United States. 

“ What is the use to go into the country and to the country with a 
questionable convention? Time? We had better sit here until the dawn 
to-morrow morning and the next morning, and the next, in order that 
we may present a credentials committee’s report which will not be sub¬ 
ject to attack, than that we cut out proof here which is conclusive as it is 
now, that the certificate which has been issued was issued to the wrong 
party. We can afford to inconvenience ourselves, and we should incon¬ 
venience ourselves rather than to permit ourselves out of the mere ques¬ 
tion of time to do that which will be criticized: If the men who meet 
in the convention next week are supposed to be the representatives of 
the masses of the people, that convention will start out on the cam¬ 
paign, with the battle very fairly won from the beginning. If they are 
believed to be not the representatives of the masses of the people, you 
will find that the fight will never calm. Look at the returns from the 
states where you have had primaries the last few months. You know as 
well as I know that we have not had anything like it in our political 
history. The common people of this country have come to the conclu¬ 
sion that they have been indifferent as to their rights. They have come 
to the conclusion that it devolves upon them to be active and to take 
care of those things, and they are going to do so; and we are here to 
see, above all things, that those whom the people elected are placed in 
the convention, so that the people will believe, although the majority is 
against, perhaps, their candidate, that nevertheless a fair fight was had, 
and that the majority should rule. 

“ Let us accept these affidavits and give these men opportunity to 
defend them. What could be fairer? What could be more just or rea¬ 
sonable? Will you go to your constituents, or what reason will you 


50 

give to your constituents why you could not sit a few hours to know the 
truth where fraud was charged in the convention? When you ar^ on 
the rostrum and hundreds of people are listening to the reason why 
you voted for your candidate, what will you say to them when they say 
to you that he was nominated by fraudulent effort to defeat the majority? 
We have got to answer these things. When we get away from here, 
when we leave the committee-room, when we leave the convention hall, 
we will go to another forum. There there will be no discussion of the 
question of time. There there will be no discussion of the question 
of convenience. Those matters will not enter into it. They will simply 
say to you that in our opinion the majority of the voters were for the 
nomination of a certain man, and the national committee interfered and 
defeated the will of the people. And if you do not make your record so 
clear and so strong that that charge will fall, you will have to meet it 
from the beginning to the close of the campaign. Therefore, if you 
expect to win here and expect to win there, make your record so that it 
cannot be attacked. I appeal to you, not as the representative of Colonel 
Roosevelt, though I am for his nomination, I appeal to you as the rep¬ 
resentatives of millions of American voters who constitute the rank and 
file of the party and in whom you have got to rely in the coming fight in 
order to sustain you upon the day of election.’’ 

Mr. Kellogg made the point that affidavits such as were 
sought to be excluded had been received in a prior Arkansas case, 
which was admitted. 

Colonel H. S. New, of Indiana, and Mr. Archie Stevenson, 
of Colorado, led the debate in opposition to the admission of the 
affidavits. 

Notwithstanding the high value of the proof contained in 
the affidavits and the conclusive bearing of such evidence upon 
the pending contests, on a motion duly made and carried by the 
unvarying Taft majority of the national committee, the affidavits 
were excluded. 

Mr. Horace Stilwell, of Indiana, who presented the contests, 
thereupon said: 

“ Gentlemen and chairman of this committee, I have no better case. 
I can conceive of no better case in the face of a convention dominated 
absolutely by the chairman of that convention with such confusion that 
it was absolutely impossible for any one in the convention ten feet from 
the chair to recognize what he was doing. We seek to bring you a clear 
statement from affidavits of a majority of the delegates in the conven¬ 
tion who swear that they voted for our candidates for delegates to this 
convention. You exclude that evidence, you take us out of court. We 
have no other evidence except that. We relied on that, it is a conclu¬ 
sive test. And I want to say now I am going to leave this committee- 
room, I had hoped that I would be able at this time to apologize for my 
opening rernarks—that this was not a steam-roller. I want to say that 
I have nothing to apologize for.” 

After some further discussion there were some conferences 
between the members of the majority faction of the committee. 


51 

and it was then moved that, notwithstanding the action of the 
committee already taken on the admission of the affidavits, they 
should be received, although with the qualification that their re¬ 
ception should not constitute a binding precedent upon the com¬ 
mittee. Thereupon the committee rescinded its prior action ex¬ 
cluding the affidavits, and ordered that they be received, and the 
contest coming to a vote, the steam-roller mustered its usual 
strength of 36 votes, against 16 votes cast in behalf of the con¬ 
testing delegation from the 13th Indiana district. 

The significance of the committee’s action in reversing itself 
on the admission of the affidavits was simply that they decided, 
after a little reflection, that it would look better to admit the 
affidavits, and then ignore their contents. As a matter of fact, 
with the affidavits a part of the record, the committee decided in 
favor of delegates whose election was conclusively shown to have 
been an impossibility, by the records before the committee. 


INDIANA DELEGATES-AT-LARGE 


The Indiana State Committee called a State convention to 
meet in Indianapolis on March 26, 1912, for the election of 
delegates-at-large. Thereafter the several counties proceeded 
to elect delegates to the State convention upon the basis of rep¬ 
resentation fixed by the State committee. Thereafter the State 
committee called the delegates of the various districts to meet 
in district conventions for the purpose of electing a member for 
each district on the various convention committees, including 
a credentials committee. These meetings of the delegates by 
districts were called for March 25, at 7.30 o’clock p.m., the night 
prior to the assembling of the delegates in State convention. At 
9.30 P.M. certain men who had been elected by some but not all of 
the district conventions as members of the credentials committee 
got together and proceeded to organize the credentials commit¬ 
tee. At this meeting only eight persons elected to the credentials 
committee were present. The full membership of the credentials 
committee was thirteen. The reason for the five absentees was 
that the district conventions had not completed their work, and 
in five of the districts elections had not yet been reached of the 
members of the credentials committee. 

At this point it should be observed that the credentials 
committee clearly had no right to meet and pretend to organize 
until the various district meetings had completed the membership 
of the credentials committee by electing from each district a 



52 

member as contemplated in the State committee’s call. Fur¬ 
thermore, the meeting of the credentials committee at that hour 
was contrary to the expressed terms of the State committee’s 
call, viz,: 

“ The Committee on Credentials will meet in the Palm Room, ninth 
floor, Claypool Hotel, immediately after the adjournment of the District 
meeting.” 

Of the eight credentials committee members present at 9.30, 
five happened to be favorable to Mr. Taft, three to Mr. Roose¬ 
velt. This momentary majority of five proceeded to organize 
by tile election of a chairman and a secretary, and then announced 
that there being contests with regard to credential members from 
the third, sixth, and eleventh districts, members elected from those 
districts would not be permitted to pass upon the contests, but 
the latter would be decided by the remaining members of the 
committee whose seats were not challenged. Up to this point 
there had been no suggestion made to the credentials committee 
that there would be any contests against the members of the 
credentials committee as such. All that had happened was that 
in three of the district meetings results had not been reached. 
The announcement by the credentials committee served to dis¬ 
close the predetermined plan for the control of the committee in 
the Taft interest. It was known to the Taft men that there 
were divisions within the district meetings of the third, sixth, 
and eleventh districts, between Taft adherents and Roosevelt 
supporters, but as to how the vote was coming out nothing 
definite w^as known, nor was there anything to indicate that 
the defeated party in either the third, sixth, or eleventh districts 
would not acquiesce in the action of the majority. In other 
words, the Taft fragment of the credentials committee proceeded 
on the assumption that they would have contests to dispose of 
before contests had been begun or announced, thus revealing 
that they were acting obediently to the settled program of the 
Taft men to seize and maintain control, regardless of numerical 
strength, of the convention in all its stages, beginning with the 
organization of the credentials committee. 

At the time the credentials committee began to organize, 
the district meetings in the third, sixth, eleventh, and thirteenth 
districts were still in progress. 

At ten o’clock the eight members of the credentials com¬ 
mittee proceeded to consider the memberships from the third, 
sixth, and eleventh districts. Dr. Hause, a Roosevelt man, who 
had been elected credentials member from the third district, was 
refused a seat upon the committee on the announcement that 


53 

the committee expected a claimant to come along for his seat 
a little later representing the Taft delegates in the district meet¬ 
ing. At that time no one had been designated by the Taft 
fragment of the district meeting. 

In the sixth they refused to seat Mr. Warfel, a Roosevelt 
man, who had been elected a member of the committee in the 
sixth district meeting by a distinct majority over his opponent, 
claiming that the district meeting had been irregularly called to 
order, notwithstanding the fact that all the delegates thereto 
had fully participated in the meeting, and the Taft men had been 
clearly and admittedly outvoted. They then proceeded to admit 
the Taft committeemen to membership in the committee from 
the third and sixth; and having got a majority by this means 
of one member of the full strength of the credentials committee, 
they seated the Roosevelt committeeman from the eleventh 
district. 

There had thus been engineered a fraudulent organization 
of the credentials committee showing Taft men in a majority 
over the Roosevelt members of seven to six. At about eleven 
o’clock p.M. on March 25, the committee proceeded to dispose 
of contests affecting seats of members in the convention. 

It is only necessary to discuss the contests coming to the 
convention from Marion County, the Seventh Congressional 
District, involving the seats of one hundred and six delegates 
in the State convention. The facts in the contests in the first 
district, Warwick County, the second district, Monroe County, 
and the fifth district, involving all told some twenty-six dele¬ 
gates, are practically identical with the facts affecting the Marion 
County contest; but the control of the State convention turned 
upon the disposition of the Marion County contests. ^ 

The committee on credentials shortly before midnight an¬ 
nounced that it would now consider the Marion County contest. 
Representatives of contestants from Marion County appeared 
before the committee prepared to establish, by sworn statements 
and by oral testimony of actual witnesses, gross frauds, open 
violence, and the systematic use of repeaters, and wide-spread 
intimidation in the election of the Marion County delegates to 
the State convention. The credentials committee, however, 
abruptly announced that it would seat the Taft delegates from 
Marion County certified by the Republican central committee Oi 
that district, the seventh. Before the announcement of the 
credentials committee, notwithstanding this proffer of proof 
and request for an opportunity to exhibit to the credentials 
committee the grounds of the contest, a motion was made by 
Henry Marshall, of the credentials committee, that the ere- 


54 

dentials committee recommend the seating of the delegates to 
the State convention whose credentials had been certified by 
the chairman of the Marion County Republican Committee. 
Despite protests, despite renewed requests for an examination 
and discussion of the grounds of the contests, the committee, 
indifferent to its duties, proceeded to entertain the motion, and 
it was carried by a vote of seven to five. Similar action was 
immediately taken with reference to the contested seats of dele¬ 
gates from the first, second, and fifth districts; and the creden¬ 
tials committee summarily drafted a meager majority report 
for delivery to the State convention on the following morning, 
reciting its action as above stated, and falsely inserting a recital 
that it was taken “ after full consideration.” 

There was no consideration of evidence, nor any pretense 
of it, nor any inquiry whatever into the merits of the contest. 
Not a witness was examined, not an afiidavit was read, not a 
statement was heard on behalf of any one appearing and prof¬ 
fering proof in support of the contesting delegates. 

The minority of the committee thereupon considered the evi¬ 
dence offered on behalf of the contestants and drew up a minority 
report recommending that the contesting delegates be seated in 
the convention. 

The following day the State convention met and put upon its 
temporary roll the names of the delegates whose seats were con¬ 
tested, and whose places in the convention were thus certified by 
the credentials committee. 

The majority and minority reports of the credentials com¬ 
mittee were submitted to the convention, and a motion was 
promptly made to lay the minority report on the table. The 
chairman of the convention announced that a vote on this motion 
would be taken by roll-call. A demand was made on behalf of 
the minority report of the credentials committee that only the 
holders of the uncontested seats in the convention should be per¬ 
mitted to vote on this motion. This motion was not put. The 
speakers were ignored. The roll-call was proceeded with and 
every delegate from the first, second, fifth, and seventh districts 
(the latter including one hundred and six delegates from Marion 
County), voted in favor of the retention of their own seats. 

On a count of the uncontested delegates, the Roosevelt dele¬ 
gates outnumbered the Taft delegates by six hundred and sixty- 
seven to six hundred and forty-eight. That was the legitimate 
vote on the adoption of the minority report. With the seating 
of the one hundred and twenty-four contesting delegates, whose 
claims were ignored, the convention would have stood seven hun¬ 
dred and ninety-one votes for Roosevelt and six hundred and 
forty-eight votes for Taft. 


55 

After the roll-call on the adoption of the so-called “ ma¬ 
jority ’’ report of the credentials committee no further roll-call 
was had, although strongly demanded. Motions were put and 
declared carried amid great confusion. No Roosevelt man could 
get recognition on the floor. Repeated efforts were made to se¬ 
cure recognition for the purpose of placing in nomination for 
delegates-at-large Hon. Albert J. Beveridge, Edwin M. Lee, 
Frederick K. Landis, and Charles H. Campbell. The chairman 
of the convention, by refusing to recognize Roosevelt men, abso¬ 
lutely prevented these names from being put before the conven¬ 
tion. 

After the program of the convention had been jammed 
through, the chairman abandoned the chair amid great confu¬ 
sion, and at a signal from him the Taft delegates in attendance 
withdrew from the hall. The delegates favorable to Roosevelt 
remained in the hall and thereupon elected A. O. Reeser, as chair¬ 
man in place of Mr. Wood, who had left the chair. Thereupon 
Messrs. Beveridge, Lee, Landis, and Campbell were nominated 
for delegates-at-large, and Messrs. Joseph H. Campbell, George 
E. Jeffrey, Morton H. Hawkins, and Charles J. Adams were 
nominated for alternate delegates-at-large. Both the delegates- 
at-large and alternates were unanimously elected by the delegates 
who had remained in the convention hall, and who constituted a 
clear majority of one hundred and forty-three of all the delegates 
in attendance at the convention. 

It will be observed that Roosevelt delegates were in a ma¬ 
jority in the State convention. Nevertheless the will of the ma¬ 
jority in the credentials committee and in the State convention 
was defeated through the fraudulent steps outlined. 

The election of the Taft delegates-at-large by the State con¬ 
vention was made possible only by permitting delegates whose 
seats were challenged and whose right in the convention was a 
subject of contest, to vote upon the contests. This is contrary 
to the most elementary principles of justice and fairness. It is 
also contrary to the rule in this respect adopted by the credentials 
committee, which in effecting its organization applied the rule 
that a member whose right to sit in the committee was contested, 
should not pass judicially upon his right to membership in the 
committee. 

The Indiana convention thus not only adopted a rule which 
is repugnant to every instinct of fair procedure, in permitting the 
holders of contested seats to vote in their own favor on these 
contests, but violated the rule which the credentials committee of 
the convention had itself adopted, and by which expedient only 
it effected an organization favorable to Taft. So that which¬ 
ever view is taken as to the right of a contested delegate or mem- 


56 

ber to vote judicially upon his own status, the election of the 
Taft delegates-at-large from Indiana is invalid. 

If it is thought that the holder of a contested seat may vote 
on his own title, the organization of the credentials committee 
which prepared the roll and seized control of the State convention 
was irregular. 

If the organization of the credentials committee shall be held 
to be regular, in that contested members were not suffered to 
vote on their own credentials, then the subsequent action of the 
convention is irregular because that rule was not observed in the 
convention. 

The fraudulent primary by which the one hundred and six 
delegates were chosen in Marion County was allowed to stand by 
reason of the refusal of the credentials committee to consider the 
overwhelming evidence presented to it of frauds, intimidation 
and repeating. This evidence was swept aside without pretense 
of examination, and a report which assured the one hundred and 
six fraudulent delegates of seats in the convention, and a con¬ 
trolling voice in its organization, was hurriedly prepared, signed, 
and transmitted to the State convention. All that the report said 
about the one hundred and six delegates from Marion County 
was the following: 

“ After the committee was organized the contests from the Seventh 
Congressional District were first taken up, and after full consideration a 
motion was carried that the delegates certified by the Republican Central 
Committee of the Seventh District be seated.’’ 

The facts which the contesting delegates from Marion 
County vainly endeavored to submit to the judicial consideration 
of the credentials committee are contained in numerous affidavits, 
nearly three hundred in number, which were submitted to the 
Republican National Committee, but not examined, and again 
submitted to the credentials committee of the national conven- 


Ample proof of fraud was offered and an earnest appeal to 
recognize the facts thus shown, was made to the credentials com¬ 
mittee on behalf of the contesting delegates-at-large by ex-United 
States Senator Albert J. Beveridge. It has seemed advisable in 
this connection to append the following rather copious extracts 
from the forecful but ineffectual plea made by Senator Beve¬ 
ridge to the credentials committee in this case as follows: 


Mr. Chairman and Genti,^- 
MEN OE THE Committee : 

I do not appear before you as 
an attorney merely, to plead a 


professional cause, but as a Re¬ 
publican profoundly concerned 
for the welfare of the party. 
My Republicanism was bom in 


me, for 1 was born when the 
Civil War was reaching its red 
climax and my father and my 
brothers were fighting for its 
principles upon the battle-field, 
as many of you men personally 
know. I have given the utmost 
that was in me ever since I 
reached manhood laboring in 
its behalf, not in my State 
alone, but in every State north 
of the Mason and Dixon line; 
in every campaign, and in most 
of the States, I have either 
opened or closed it. And so I 
appear here not as an attorney 
or the advocate of a faction, 
but as a Republican profound¬ 
ly convinced of the justice of 
a cause which I wish to state 
to you as clearly as I can. 

It is not a pleasant thing to 
do. It is not in my nature to 
attack anybody or say any un¬ 
pleasant thing. When, as a 
member of the Committee on 
Privileges and Elections in the 
Senate, I felt it my duty under 
my oath and my conscience 
to stand alone against the 
members of my committee, 
and filed the minority report 
against Mr. Lorimer because I 
regarded it as a matter of 
righteousness, that afforded me 
no pleasure at all, but quite the 
reverse; and it is from this 
point of view that I come be¬ 
fore you. 

The first case involves dele- 
gates-at-large from Indiana. 
There were in the convention 
1,439 votes, of which 719^^ 
were a majority. There were 
of uncontested votes for Roose¬ 
velt 667, and of uncontested 


votes for Mr. Taft 648, giv¬ 
ing a majority to Mr. Roose¬ 
velt of 19 uncontested votes. 

There were in the conven¬ 
tion 124 contested votes. These 
Avere made up of 106 votes 
from Marion County, Indian¬ 
apolis, which were contested 
upon the ground of fraud, and 
which is the main point, but 
not the only one in the case. 
Thirteen were from Monroe 
County and five were from 
Vanderberg County. 

If you add to the uncon¬ 
tested votes — admittedly un¬ 
contested for Colonel Roose¬ 
velt—the 124 of the contested 
votes, there is a total of 791, 
or 71over all, or a majority 
over the uncontested votes of 
Mr. Taft of 143. These fig¬ 
ures, of course, I believe are 
matters of mathematics, and 
any statement I have thus far 
made may be controverted by 
my friend Mr. Moores upon 
the other side. So that in order 
to get at the meat of this case 
we must take up the contested 
votes and see why they are 
contested and see whether the 
contests were just. 

In the first place, take the 
five votes from Vanderberg 
County. Here are the affida¬ 
vits of twenty-six Republicans 
of this ward in the city of Ev¬ 
ansville, Vanderberg County. 
It states in substance that the 
chairman of the ward was a 
Taft man, and arbitrarily re¬ 
fused to allow a vote for the 
election of a permanent chair¬ 
man, or count the Roosevelt 
and Taft men, but finally let 


the meeting divide in the mid¬ 
dle of the street. When the 
Roosevelt and Taft men di¬ 
vided, the Roosevelt men out¬ 
numbered the Taft men three 
to one. At this state of said 
meeting a count was made; 
that said chairman held a 
whispered conversation with 
one Harry Stalheifer, a Taft 
man, and then stepped down 
from the chair and walked 
away. Thereupon the Roose¬ 
velt men took charge of the 
meeting and elected a perma¬ 
nent chairman; that a large 
majority of Roosevelt men 
elected Roosevelt delegates to 
said first district convention; 
that it was afterward learned 
that said temporary chairman 
claimed to have appointed said 
delegates to said first district 
convention. 

He appointed them; that is 
all the claim he made. 

Now, as to the thirteen votes 
from Monroe. It appears that 
the credentials committee, to 
the formation of which I will 
come to in a moment, at the 
State convention unseated the 
Roosevelt delegates elected by 
an overwhelming and almost 
unanimous vote at the county 
convention of Monroe County, 
where our State committee is 
located, upon the ground that 
to select them by a convention, 
county convention, was not in 
accordance with the State 
committee’s call for election, 
and that that should have been 
by townships, and therefore it 
was illegal and utterly void; 
and in view of the fact that 


Taft delegates had been elected 
in township convention, the 
nature of which I will not go 
into, they said the illegality 
and the utter voidness of the 
delegates selected by county 
convention to the State conven¬ 
tion would not allow them to 
be seated, and so seated the 
others. At the same time the 
credentials committee seated 
the Taft delegates elected by 
county convention in Warwick 
County. That is in one case. 
They unseated the Roosevelt 
delegates because they were 
elected by a county convention 
instead of by townships, and 
at the very same time ruling 
that the delegates selected for 
Mr. Taft in Warwick County 
by the same system should be 
seated. 

That brings us down to the 
io6 from Marion County, 
which is the city, practically, 
of Indianapolis. In this case 
it is our contention, gentlemen, 
and we shall prove it, that there 
was a deliberate conspiracy on 
the part of the city organiza¬ 
tion—the county organization, 
I should say, headed by its 
chairman, who was city comp¬ 
troller, and it is now under 
Mayor Shank and in control 
of large numbers of city em¬ 
ployees—to conduct this elec¬ 
tion so that no matter what 
was done by the Roosevelt fol¬ 
lowers, no matter how many 
votes were cast, that neverthe¬ 
less the result should show a 
Taft majority. In support of 
this, here is the affidavit of 
Harry O. Chamberlain, a law- 


yer of Indianapolis—a lawyer 
of high standing in his profes¬ 
sion, whose word I have never 
heard anybody doubt, and who 
I think no person will say 
would make a false affidavit. 
I have his affidavit to the effect 
that when the primary was ap¬ 
proaching he went to Mr. Wal¬ 
lace, the county chairman, and 
asked of him fair treatment, 
watchers at the polls, inspect¬ 
ors on behalf of Colonel 
Roosevelt, as well as Mr. Taft, 
inside of the polling-places, 
and that Mr. Wallace, who is 
a very emphatic gentleman, 
replied: “You are not going 
to win this fight for the Roose¬ 
velt delegates. I am not going 
to let you win. You sha’n’t 
have a single delegate in this 
convention. I don’t care how 
much Roosevelt sentiment there 
is here, or how many votes you 
have got, you are not going to 
have a look-in. I propose 
to see to it that you don’t 
have a chance in the world. 
I don’t care how many votes 
3^011 have. I will appoint a 
contest board that will throw 
out every one of you who come 
to this convention. I don’t 
care what the law is, I am not 
going to let you in. You might 
just as well take that from me 
and understand it. You have 
no more show to beat us than 
you have to buck down this 
wall. You might as well 
realize that you are not going 
to win, for I am not going to 
let 3^ou. You can go ahead and 
make a fight if you want to, 
but it won’t do any good; and 


let me tell you something fur¬ 
ther—if I am to be licked in 
this fight or next November, 
I shall be licked next Novem¬ 
ber.” 

And here is an affidavit by 
Harry M. Smith, who was 
present when this conversation 
was had, and who says in his 
affidavit that it repeats the 
substance of what the Roose¬ 
velt men in Indianapolis asked 
that in the polling-places there 
should be inspectors for Roose¬ 
velt as well as inspectors for 
Taft, and it was denied them. 
And as a matter of fact they 
were not admitted, I believe, 
except in one or two cases. It 
must be remembered that in 
Indiana we have no law gov¬ 
erning such a primary contest 
as this. Nothing is required. 
We don’t have to use the Aus¬ 
tralian ballot; we don’t have to 
use the voting-machine. There 
is no criminal provision apply¬ 
ing to such a primary as this 
in the election of delegates to 
district and State conventions. 
And, as a matter of fact, when 
the polling day came no Aus¬ 
tralian ballot was used; no 
voting-machines were used; 
the polling-places in some in¬ 
stances were placed in the 
most inconvenient portions of 
wards; sometimes, as the af¬ 
fidavits which I later on shall 
read to you show, as far as 
four miles from one side to the 
other. In a great majority of 
the polling-places in the ward 
the voter was not permitted to 
see what became of his vote: 
it was handed in through a 


6o 


little hole in the window. In 
one case the person who took 
the ballot had his back to the 
voter. The voter in no instance 
could see what became of his 
ballot, and in no instance 
except two or three where no 
contests occurred, according 
to these affidavits, were the 
Roosevelt men allowed to have 
either a watcher at the polls or 
an inspector upon the inside. 
So, gentlemen, not only that, 
but the notice of where these 
polling-places were to be fixed 
in these inconvenient places 
was not given until the evening 
before the day of the primary, 
and then in only one case. So 
the voting came on. 

Just before this there had 
been a straw-ballot by the chief 
paper, the Indianapolis Star, 
whose very earnest efforts 
against the Roosevelt men and 
for the Taft men for the ten 
days before the primary 
throughout the State was the 
greatest difficulty we had to 
go up against—this paper had 
a straw-ballot. It was a Taft 
newspaper, and after counting 
the vote it showed that Mr. 
Roosevelt got more than three 
to one to Mr. Taft. 

But the election came on. It 
was common talk in Indianap¬ 
olis—I was there as it ap¬ 
proached—that there wouldn’t 
be an opportunity for the 
Roosevelt men to have their 
votes counted. The testimony 
shows that in ward after ward 
the grossest and most outra¬ 
geous repeating was done. I 
remember very well that when, 


as a young man, I was on the 
stump I used to go very care¬ 
fully into those cases about 
election frauds in the South. 
I did it with indignation, but 
in none of them have I read 
anything that exceeded what I 
shall read to you from one of 
these affidavits. There were 
cases where a truck-load of ne¬ 
groes were followed by three 
men, who make affidavit to it, 
from ward to ward, and then 
back to the first place, and vo¬ 
ted. There are large numbers 
of affidavits, but I have only 
brought a few because I don’t 
want to detain you; but these 
will suffice, and everybody will 
take my word that they are 
fair samples, and not the worst 
of them, either, where repeat¬ 
ing occurred of the worst kind. 
And it is the testimony of men 
of reputation, of high stand¬ 
ing and integrity. And if I 
am not right Mr. Moores, who 
leads the other party in this 
controversy, will correct me 
when he comes to reply, when 
I make the statement that they 
are of the highest character 
and standing. 

In one instance, I believe it 
was in the ninth ward, Mr. 
William L. Taylor, a manu¬ 
facturer and one of the most 
eminent young business men in 
our State, a man of integrity 
and high standing, whose 
slightest word, outside of an 
affidavit, is taken by business 
men throughout the United 
States—a man who is not con¬ 
nected with politics, a man who 
doesn’t belong to any political 


faction, a man who is one 
of our school board there, 
highly respected in the commu¬ 
nity and the State—makes af¬ 
fidavit to the fact that when he 
went to the polling-place he 
voted, and he noted the unusual 
conditions there, and he be¬ 
came suspicious and waited 
around, and when the polling 
was done the doors were all 
closed and locked, of course, 
and he got on a step-ladder and 
looked into the window and 
saw what was going on; they 
were in there for five or ten 
minutes until the so - called 
voting was said to be over, and 
that the election officers did 
not even touch the ballot- 
boxes, but came out at the 
expiration of that period, and 
gave the report of the ballot 
without even touching the bal¬ 
lot-boxes or looking at a bal¬ 
lot. 

Again, a Mr. Griffiths, one 
of the election officers, makes 
an affidavit here that he was 
an inspector or something. He 
is a city employee. He made a 
statement to Mr. Gordon Hub¬ 
bard of Indianapolis, whose 
cousin he is, that what they did 
in his ward was just to reverse 
the Taft and Roosevelt vote. 
That gave Taft 480 and Roose¬ 
velt 80, whereas the real vote 
was precisely the reverse. In 
other cases instances of fraud 
are even more clear and glar¬ 
ing than that. 

In the Lorimer case I had 
occasion to examine exhaust¬ 
ively every case of fraud in 
elections that has occurred and 


has been reported in the Eng¬ 
lish language. And one of the 
lightest of these things which 
I shall read to you in England 
would put a man in the peni¬ 
tentiary under their corrupt 
practises act. 

Not only was repeating 
done, but in instance after in¬ 
stance men voted who were 
recognized by the men making 
those affidavits as not living 
in the ward. 

For example, Mr. J. P. 
O’Mear, who is the editor of 
the Indiana Catholic — the 
Catholic paper of our State— 
and whose word and standing, 
I imagine, will not be chal¬ 
lenged, swears that he saw 
droves of people—I will read 
his affidavit in a minute—and 
among them a negro boy not 
fifteen years of age, who went 
up and voted—voted! You 
must remember that the chal¬ 
lenges that were made to all 
these illegal votes were not 
paid attention to. They were 
voted without attention being 
paid to the challenges, al¬ 
though challenges were made. 

Another instance: Men like 
Mr. Lewis—Mr. Edwin M. 
Lewis, of Bicker & Daniers 
law office—whom Mr. Moores 
knows very well, one of the 
young men of the highest 
character in our entire State, 
make affidavit that they made 
actual count of the votes 
polled, how many Roosevelt 
had, and the discrepancy be¬ 
tween that and the return is 
glaring. 

These, gentlemen, are some 


62 


of the examples, some of the 
kind I know of the frauds 
practised in that election, and 
I do not doubt but that there 
are some members of the dele- 
gates-at-large, if they were in¬ 
formed as I have been, by 
reading these affidavits myself 
for the first time, would re¬ 
fuse to sit on that delegation. 

This fraud in all the wards 
where the contested delegates 
came from was universally and 
well known. The strictest 
proof, as every lawyer knows, 
of fraud in election cases 
is this: that you count up 
the illegal votes, and if there 
is not enough to vitiate the ma¬ 
jority, then, no matter. That 
is a ruling that has long since 
passed away. The courts do 
not adhere to that terribly 
dangerous practise any more. 
But, conceding that, the corol¬ 
lary to that rule will not be de¬ 
nied as a legal proposition by 
anybody, because the books are 
full of it, that where fraud is 
universal, notorious, and pre¬ 
vailing, it vitiates the whole 
election: and that is the kind 
of fraud that is established in 
these cases. 

Now, with this outline of 
the nature of the fraud, let us 
come to this State convention, 
and then I shall ask to inter¬ 
rupt the logical course of my 
remarks to come back, after 
I relate what occurred at the 
State convention, and read the 
specific examples of the testi¬ 
mony I have referred to, and 
describe the character of the 
men who make the affidavits. 


With the election thus held, 
and, if this is denied, it cannot 
be denied that it was universal 
comment in the Columbia 
Club every day, by both Taft 
men and Roosevelt men—we 
are all friends down there per¬ 
sonally, and we meet at the 
club like everybody else, and 
eat lunch—that these frauds 
were unprecedented in the his¬ 
tory of our town. And I per¬ 
sonally have not met a man 
who, at luncheon when these 
things are talked over in a 
friendly way, has denied it. 
.Not one! It is universally in 
the air. 

With these elections thus 
held, and these io6 men thus 
elected, they were given certifi¬ 
cates by Harry Wallace, the 
county chairman. Harry Wal¬ 
lace is the city comptroller. 
The mayor of the city of In¬ 
dianapolis, who appointed Mr. 
Wallace, is Mr. Shank, and 
Mr. Shank’s most intimate as¬ 
sociate is Mr. Kealing, who is 
said to be one of the managers 
of the Taft campaign here, 
and who has been well known 
to be actively associated with 
him. 

Mr. Wallace made the dec¬ 
laration to which I have re¬ 
ferred, and he issued certifi¬ 
cates to these io6, notwith¬ 
standing the protests of their 
election. 

Then a credentials commit¬ 
tee, or a contest committee, 
which is a thing which exists 
by custom in Marion County 
for the last twenty years, was 
appointed, and on that contest 


committee was the partner of 
Mr. Joseph P. Kealing, a city 
employee—I have forgotten 
who the other man was—and 
a young man by the name of 
Bamberger, who declared that 
he would not vote for Roose¬ 
velt even if he was nomina¬ 
ted ; but Mr. Bamberger did 
not serve upon the board, but 
was out of town. Those gen¬ 
tlemen assumed to pass upon 
these cases. 

Then came the State con¬ 
vention. A credentials com¬ 
mittee was appointed. The 
Taft men got control of the 
committee by a trick which 
aroused my anger, although I 
never pay very much attention 
to those things. We controlled 
the committee, the Roosevelt 
men, by seven to six. There 
are thirteen districts in the 
State; the Taft men had six 
uncontested places on the cre¬ 
dentials committee, for our 
men made no contests where 
there were no contests to be 
made. But three contests at 
the last moment were trumped 
against the Roosevelt members 
of the credentials committee. 

For example, the sixth dis¬ 
trict — Richmond, Indiana — 
which has two Roosevelt dele¬ 
gates here, and a great major¬ 
ity of Roosevelt delegates to 
the State convention, never¬ 
theless, had a Taft member of 
the credentials committee— 
how the credentials committee 
was composed I waive. I don’t 
want to confuse your mind by 
any technicalities. I want to 
come directly to what it did. 


It finally was organized with 
seven to six—seven Taft men 
to six Roosevelt—and they 
proceeded to decide these con¬ 
tests. They decided the cases 
of Monroe and Warwick in 
the way I have told you, re¬ 
versing themselves in the two 
contests, and when it came to 
the examination of the io6 
contests, from Indianapolis, 
Charles Remmler and Linton 
A. Cox—Charles Remmler, a 
lawyer of the highest standing 
at the bar of our city, and Lin¬ 
ton Cox, our former candidate 
for Congress, and a man than 
whom no man at the Indianap¬ 
olis bar, of which I am a mem¬ 
ber, stands higher, and he 
makes affidavit here as to the 
frauds in his ward—appeared 
for these contestants before 
this credentials committee and 
set forth the frauds that had 
occurred, and offered to prove 
—and the offers are in the 
brief — offered to prove as a 
lawyer in court offers to prove 
the testimony he is presenting 
—the frauds that vitiated the 
election of these men; and the 
credentials committee abso¬ 
lutely refused to hear a word 
of testimony, and decided in 
favor of the Taft delegates 
thus elected, without a word of 
testimony being presented. 

In that way it went before 
the State convention, which 
convened the next day, the io6 
Roosevelt delegates who were 
legally elected from Indianap¬ 
olis all the time protesting and 
offering to prove their cases, 
their offers being refused and 


the testimony being refused to 
be considered by the contest 
committee, although it was 
universally said on the streets 
—it was in the air, it was full 
of charges that the frauds had 
occurred, and I have never yet, 
as I said to you gentlemen, 
heard any person I have heard 
talk about the case, no matter 
whether for Taft or for Roose¬ 
velt, deny the existence of these 
frauds. 

So the State convention con¬ 
vened. 

Now, when the convention 
met, a majority and minority 
report of the credentials com¬ 
mittee was first presented in 
the usual course. Mr. Stillwell, 
who sits there, was the chair¬ 
man of the minority commit¬ 
tee, the Roosevelt men, and T 
have forgotten who was the 
chairman of the majority or 
Taft men. The minority re¬ 
port challenged all these votes, 
and recommended that they 
should be unseated, and the 
Roosevelt men seated in their 
place; and of course the ma¬ 
jority recommended that the 
io6 from Indianapolis and the 
five from Vanderberg, etc., 
should be seated. Mr. Still¬ 
well moved that the minority 
report be made a substitute. 
On that there was a roll-call, 
and the 124 contested votes 
were permitted to vote upon 
their own case. Mr. Stillwell 
arose and with all his might 
tried to get the recognition 
of the chair to appeal from 
the decision. It was denied 
him. He was not recog¬ 


nized. He then attempted to 
get recognition to challenge 
the vote, but that was refused 
him, and that appears from the 
affidavit which Mr. Stillwell 
himself makes. 

Thereupon, to pass to the 
next step in the convention 
which is vital, the chairman of 
the State convention, Mr. Will 
Wood, of Lafayette, Indiana, 
called for nominations, and 
some of you gentlemen, I be¬ 
lieve Mr. Watson—it doesn’t 
make any difference—nomina¬ 
ted the seating of the delegates* 
at-large. Mr. Wood would 
well, who is very well known 
in Indianapolis, whose * voice 
has exceeding power and pene¬ 
tration, arose instantly and 
with all his might tried to get 
the recognition of the chair for 
the purpose of putting in nomi¬ 
nation the Roosevelt delegates- 
at-large. Thereupon Mr. Still- 
not recognize him, and the fact 
is that Republican State Con¬ 
vention had no opportunity to 
vote for anything at all except 
the delegates-at-large in our 
city. Immediately thereafter 
a motion was made to ad¬ 
journ, and Mr. Wood declared 
the convention adjourned. The 
Roosevelt men met, to the 
number of 750 to 800, in the 
same hall, and this is support¬ 
ed by testimony which I will 
read you in a moment, because 
the convention elected a chair¬ 
man and a secretary in the reg¬ 
ular form, in the same hall, at 
the same time, and immediate¬ 
ly after the breaking-iip of 
this arbitrary proceeding, and 


elected the contesting dele- 
gates-at-large. Now, that is 
the history of the convention. 

Now, gentlemen, I return to 
the question of fraud in Mar¬ 
ion County. Let us get down 
to specifications. I call your 
attention to a statement made 
in the brief of the city dele¬ 
gates. In each one of these 
wards appears the sworn state¬ 
ment of the election officers, 
most of whom are city employ¬ 
ees, that everything was regu¬ 
lar, and that there was no re¬ 
peating and no fraud. 

It is sufficient to say in an¬ 
swer to all these statements, 
without imputing anything or 
questioning the veracity of 
these gentlemen who make the 
affidavits, that the affidavits 
show—the ones I am going to 
present to you—that there was 
no opportunity for them to see 
if there was repeating or not; 
that they didn’t want to; that 
the repeating was done outside. 
The inspector, if he recognized 
them, let them in. It was in a 
closed room. But let us take 
this up ward by ward, and see 
what occurs. Now, here is a 
similar affidavit from these so- 
called election officers in every 
ward that everything was reg¬ 
ular; that there was no repeat¬ 
ing; that there was no fraud, 
although if they were attend¬ 
ing to their business perhaps 
they would not have as much 
opportunity. 

Let us take the first one. 
Here is Mr. Theodore Hewes. 
Mr. Morris knows Mr. Hewes 
very well. He is the editor of 


a big poultry journal, one of 
the largest in the United 
States, and one of the very 
largest and best-known men in 
that line all over this country. 
I dare say as to Theodore 
Hewes that some of you 
men know him. He is a man 
of wide acquaintance; a man 
of the very highest business 
standing; a man whose integ¬ 
rity has never been questioned. 
Now, let’s see what he says 
about this: “ Affiant further 
says that there were a great 
many repeaters voted at this 
primary over his protest.” 
Theodore Hewes is a man who 
has lived in that ward; he is 
active in politics—I mean a 
regular Republican worker, 
who has never asked for of¬ 
fice, and never held any office, 
I believe. That there were a 
great many repeaters voted at 
this primary over his protest, 
and that the inspector and po¬ 
lice refused absolutely to pay 
any attention to his challenges! 
And I say I shall show you by 
affidavits which I shall read, if 
I get the time, that the police 
force interfered in this elec¬ 
tion to the detriment of the 
Roosevelt forces; and I shall 
in a moment read the testi¬ 
mony of Judge Henry Clay 
Allen, for whom all of us in 
Indianapolis have a respect 
that is almost reverence. Hen¬ 
ry Clay. Allen, whom this gen¬ 
tleman sitting there, Mr. Eng¬ 
lish, knows, and who has a 
name that stands for honor in 
every home in Indianapolis; a 
man who would not tell an un- 


66 


truth, much less make an affi¬ 
davit to an untruth, not even 
for the Presidency. That is 
the kind of man he is. Let’s 
see what Mr. Hewes further 
says: ‘‘ Affiant further says 
that the members of the elec¬ 
tion board are all employees 
of the city of Indianapolis.” 
Although we asked for a 
representation on the board. 
Wasn’t that fair? Wasn’t it 
fair to give us a representation 
on the board, too ? They were 
all city employees. Samuel 
Lewis Shank, the mayor of 
said city, was a candidate for 
delegate on the Taft slate at 
this primary. '' Affiant fur¬ 
ther says that after the closing 
of the polls he made a request 
to John Carter, the inspector 
in charge, that he be allowed 
as a watcher to witness the 
counting of the ballots.” And 
remember that this man is not 
a ward heeler. That he be al¬ 
lowed as a watcher to witness 
the counting of the ballots, and 
that the inspector told him 
he would have to see Wal¬ 
lace; that affiant then called 
Wallace over the telephone, 
told him the conditions, and 
requested for the sake of party 
harmony, and having at heart 
the success of the Republican 
party in November, that he be 
allowed to witness the count¬ 
ing of the ballots; that this re¬ 
quest was refused; that affi¬ 
ant then asked as a personal 
favor that he be allowed in the 
room, and that said Wallace, 
who, as before alleged, is 
chairman of the Republican 


County Central Committee, re¬ 
plied as follows; “ I would do 
it for you if for anybody, but 
I don’t propose that you fel¬ 
lows shall have a damn vote in 
Marion County.” 

When Mr. Moores comes to 
reply he can tell you who Theo¬ 
dore Hewes is from his per¬ 
sonal knowledge and informa¬ 
tion. And here is one from 
David D. Nagley. He owns 
a farm out there at the east 
end of the town. He testifies 
that he went to the polls, and 
that during his stay at the polls 
there were several wagon-loads 
and automobile - loads and 
squads of voters who came to 
vote for the Taft delegates; 
“ that to affiant’s best informa¬ 
tion and belief these voters 
were not residents of his 
ward.” He is a man who has 
lived there all his life, too. 
“ Affiant further says that the 
voting-place was in the south¬ 
east corner, about two miles 
from affiant’s home,” and so 
forth. There are other things, 
but I will not take your time. 

And here is the testimony of 
Squire Kelly. All this is in 
the ward where these gentle¬ 
men who were city employees 
trying to elect Mayor Shank, 
and Mr. English, who sits 
there to vote on this case, at 
the primary just preceding 
this case. He says that he 
voted on the day and date 
above, at the voting-place of 
the First Ward; and that he 
went to the polls carrying in 
his hands a Roosevelt ballot, 
which said ballot was marked 


for men who were in favor of 
men for Theodore Roosevelt; 
that when he approached the 
polls with the Roosevelt ballot 
in his hands, several city em¬ 
ployees surrounded him and 
urged him to vote the Taft 
ticket; and that the Roosevelt 
ticket was torn from his hands 
by the Taft supporters, and 
that he was brutally assaulted 
by the Taft adherents. 

Affiant avers that he finally 
made his way to the window 
and cast the Roosevelt ballot, 
but that he could not see what 
disposition was made of his 
ballot; that the city employees 
in and around the polls told 
him he would lose his position 
in the city of Indianapolis. I 
understand he was fired from 
his position because he dared 
to vote for Roosevelt, and I 
will show you, gentlemen, if we 
have time, that a policeman’s 
name—one man, the only man 
we could find who dared to 
vote for Roosevelt—had his 
name taken down with the re¬ 
mark, “ I saw you do that ”; 
but I will only give you some 
samples. It will take too long 
to do it in full. I can see that. 

Let’s take up this Second 
Ward. And I am going to take 
up some little time there, be¬ 
cause of the character of these 
men. Here is the Second 
Ward, gentlemen. Here is an 
affidavit by Joseph P. O’Ma- 
hony. Mr. O’Mahony, I want 
to impress upon you, is the ed¬ 
itor of the Indiana Catholic, a 
Catholic paper of Indianapolis, 
and I don’t suppose, whatever 


our heat may be in politics, 
that anybody will question the 
honor of Mr. O’Mahony. He 
testifies that he went to the 
polls and stayed there where 
the voting-place was located; 
and he tells how inconvenient 
it was, and he had to put his 
ballot in through a hole, and he 
could not see what became of 
it; and he says: “ Under these 
conditions the Roosevelt sup¬ 
porters on the sidewalk asked 
several times for watchers or 
one watcher to be allowed in¬ 
side the polls, but this was flat¬ 
ly refused.” 

I want to stop and impress 
upon you gentlemen clearly 
that all these affidavits estab¬ 
lish the fact that while we were 
denied watchers in the voting- 
place, or any access to it so 
we could see what became of 
our tickets, the Taft men, on 
the other side, were allowed 
free access to the polling- 
places, and there are the affi¬ 
davits. “ Across the street in 
a vacant house were assem¬ 
bled a crowd of colored men, 
many of whom, to the knowl¬ 
edge of this affiant, were abso¬ 
lutely strangers in the ward. 
From this building, guided by 
city employees, groups of 
men were about to cross the 
street from time to time to 
vote, all being supplied with 
Taft tickets in advance. Af¬ 
fiant saw a colored fellow who 
was not more than fifteen years 
of age, going to vote with a 
group of colored men, and, ap¬ 
proaching him, asked him his 
age. When questioned he said 


68 


his father told him he was old 
enough to vote. As affiant 
was questioning the boy, a city 
policeman who was on duty at 
the place caught him by the 
arm and said, ‘ Don’t interfere 
with that voter.’ The police¬ 
man then led the colored boy 
into the line of voters, and he 
voted without further ques¬ 
tion. 

“ Affiant witnessed several 
other such instances of fraud¬ 
ulent voting, and when the vo¬ 
ting - place was about to be 
closed a half a dozen vehi¬ 
cles, loaded with strange men, 
black and white, were rushed 
to the polling-place, and sev¬ 
eral hundred votes cast which, 
in the knowledge of the affi¬ 
ant, who lived in that ward, 
had no right to be cast in the 
ward. The conditions in the 
primary to elect delegates for 
the State convention were in 
the opinion of affiant far 
worse than at the primaries 
for the election of the district 
delegates held on March 15. 
The illegal voting was more 
open, and affiant solemnly de¬ 
clares after an experience of 
twenty-one years in which he 
has witnessed all kinds of pri¬ 
maries in Pennsylvania and 
Maryland, and elsewhere, that 
he never saw such open and 
flagrant fraud as at this elec¬ 
tion held in Indianapolis.” 
That is the editor of a Catholic 
paper, and I will read you also 
the testimony of an eye-wit¬ 
ness who is a Baptist preacher. 

Here is the testimony, gen¬ 
tlemen, showing the general 


conditions, the affidavit of 
Judge Henry Clay Allen. I 
am going to take the time to 
read you this, with your 
permission, because of the 
character of Judge Henry Clay 
Allen. He was for twelve 
years the judge of our Circuit 
Court, and I think that Mr. 
Moores—and this is a subject 
that does not concern anybody 
but Mr. Moores and myself, 
and we will agree that if there 
is one thing that will describe 
the character of Judge Henry 
Clay Allen, it is the word 
“ honor.” His word in In¬ 
dianapolis stands absolutely. 
He is one of the most sacrifi¬ 
cing men in our State or in any 
other State, and it is he who, 
when on the bench, said that 
while there might be a different 
course with us, and that a man 
that was honest for any rea¬ 
son deserved praise, still that 
a man who was born honest, 
had a better start. 

“Judge Henry Clay Allen, 
being first duly sworn, said on 
his oath, that he had resided 
in this city since 1876 and 
most of the time near the 
place where he now resides. 

“ That prior to the recent 
primaries held to select dele¬ 
gates for the Republican na¬ 
tional convention, residents of 
said wards supporting ex- 
President Roosevelt re¬ 
quested him to act as the 
inspector or judge on the 
election board at such primary, 
which he consented to do and 
his appointment was requested 
and refused by those in charge, 


and those opposed to President 
Taft’s nomination were re¬ 
fused any representation on 
the board.” About time for the 
polls to open, before the polls 
were opened for the primary to 
elect delegates to the district 
convention, which was to 
choose delegates to the Chicago 
national Republican conven¬ 
tion, quite a number of 
Republican voters of the ward 
were present at the place 
designated for the primary, 
including the ward committee¬ 
men and State committeemen 
for this district and Mayor 
Shank. The City Comptroller 
is chairman of the Republican 
County Central Committee, 
and one of the board appointed 
was a clerk in his office. The 
other two members of the 
board were employed as city 
inspectors or some other sub¬ 
ordinate position in the city 
government. 

One of the inspectors who 
makes this affidavit with ref¬ 
erence to seating the delegates 
at large, swears that this thing 
was all done correctly. In 
this Second Ward the vote was 
reported by the inspector, as 
87 for Roosevelt and 561 for 
Taft. Now let us see what this 
inspector did. This is an affi¬ 
davit made by Mr. Hawkins. 
He is a lawyer in Indianapolis. 
He testifies that this man Grif¬ 
fiths stated to him that when 
they came up to report the vote, 
he simply reversed the vote, 
that is to say, he simply made 
it 561 for Taft and 87 for 
Roosevelt. 


69 

Let me go to the Third 
Ward. I am going to pick 
some out for you, gentlemen. 
I will have to pick them out or 
we’ll never get through to¬ 
night. Gentlemen, this is an af¬ 
fidavit by HarveyB. Stout, and 
this affidavit, I repeat, is sup¬ 
ported by Carle Mots, a news¬ 
paperman, and Mr. Hill, an en¬ 
gineer for Fairbanks, Morse & 
Company. Mr. Harvey Stout 
is a lawyer. He is a lecturer on 
law at the State University, at 
Butler College, and two law 
schools in Indianapolis. His 
credibility as a witness I think 
will not be questioned by any¬ 
body. “ That the affiant to¬ 
gether with a mechanical 
engineer in the employ of 
Fairbanks, Morse & Compa¬ 
ny,” He says that he is accom¬ 
panied by this man, “ that 
affiant saw a truck-load of men 
on South Meridan Street bear¬ 
ing about forty voters drive 
first to the Tenth Ward where 
he saw the men cast Taft 
ballots, then he saw the truck 
go to the Eleventh Ward where 
they voted Taft ballots ”—and 
I want to stop right here and 
explain another thing which I 
ask everybody to take my word 
for. Nearly all these affidavits 
show that the Taft ballots in 
some wards were distinguished 
by having a red band across 
the back, that in others they 
had a checkered design on the 
back so that they were all well 
known, that is, the Taft bal¬ 
lots were well known, whereas 
the Roosevelt ballots were the 
ordinary ballots. When these 


gentlemen testified that they 
knew the ballots, they knew 
because they saw the vote. 
That the truck then went to 
the Eleventh Ward where they 
voted Taft ballots. “ That af¬ 
fiant saw a truck in the Four¬ 
teenth Ward, another auto 
truck filled with men joined the 
first truck. Affiant saw the 
voters in both trucks vote at 
this place; that affiant saw the 
trucks go to the Fifteenth 
Ward where he saw both trucks 
loaded with men vote Taft 
ballots.” “ That affiant then 
drove to the Fourth Ward of 
the city of Indianapolis and 
saw there several other auto¬ 
mobiles loaded with men; that 
affiant saw one truck loaded 
with men stop at the saloon, 
the Fort Wayne Saloon; that 
he saw the load in this auto go 
into the saloon, stay there 
about five minutes, climb back 
in the automobiles and return 
to the Sixth Ward voting-place 
where they voted Taft ballots; 
affiant further states that he 
saw automobiles containing 
colored Taft workers go to the 
same saloon; that at this time 
the driver of the automobile 
saw that the affiant in his auto¬ 
mobile was following him and 
that the first automobile then 
at full speed drove to the 
northern part of the city for 
about four miles, and finally 
the affiant and those in his ma¬ 
chine with him lost track of the 
machine containing the Taft 
repeaters. Whereupon affiant 
immediately drove his ma¬ 
chine to the voting place in the 


vSixth Ward in time to see the 
first automobile load of men 
vote for the third time at the 
voting place at the Sixth 
Ward.” 

Passing over the former 
part, affiant further states that 
he was present immediately 
after the polls were closed and 
was permitted to watch the 
counting of the ballots. In the 
iDottom of the ballot-box there 
were more than 250 Taft bal¬ 
lots folded uniformly in stacks 
and pads as though placed in 
there at one time. There is 
other testimony here, Mr. 
Chairman, that shows the same 
thing. When I come to Mr. 
Lewis’s affidavit, and I want to 
tell you about it now, of the 
men that he found going to the 
poles with four ballots folded 
up in their hands; that one of 
Shank’s appointees was per¬ 
mitted to watch the counting of 
the vote and that in the bottom 
ot the ballot-box there were 
found folded, occurring in 
stacks or pads, ballots which 
looked as though they were 
placed there at one time. The 
voters couldn’t see what be¬ 
came of the ballots. 

This is the affidavit of Will¬ 
iam L. Taylor, at the head of 
the firm of Chandler, Taylor 
& Company. Mr. English 
knows him well, and Mr. 
Moores knows him well. Per¬ 
haps he is one of the six 
leading young business men of 
Indiana. His word, as I said 
before, is taken everywhere in 
the business world wherever 
he is known. He is a man of 


high standing. He is a mem¬ 
ber of the school board. He 
has nothing to do with politics, 
he is not connected with any 
faction, has no interest in 
politics except to see that clean 
politics exist. He testified that 
he looked through the windows 
from a step-ladder for from 
five to ten minutes, and that 
they didn’t even touch the bal¬ 
lot-boxes. It is the character 
of ihe man as well as what he 
swears to. 

Now, here are affidavits of 
Charles P. Jones and of Mr. 
Curtis, concerning false votes 
being cast, that is where an ac¬ 
curate count had been kept 
and the vote returned by 
the inspector, and it being 
different. 

Here is one concerning the 
non-resident votes. Here is 
one concerning police interfer¬ 
ence. This runs all through 
tiiese affidavits. Repeating 
and police interference. And 
this is an affidavit by George 
Mueller. George Mueller is 
one of the Mueller Commis¬ 
sion Company. Here is one 
by Charles E. Bacon. He is 
the architect of the Merchants’ 
National Bank Building, and 
of that other big building there. 
He describes the condition of 
the voting places as far as he 
knows. Here is one by George 
R. Mueller concerning the po¬ 
lice voting at the voting place. 

I will be through with this 
testimony in just one second. 
There are affidavits about the 
illegal voting of city employees. 
Here is one concerning repeat¬ 


ing. Here is one concerning 
repeating. This is one by Mr. 
Galloway. This is by Frank 
Doudican. He testifies to re¬ 
peating. This is as to minors. 
I know I must get through with 
this, but when I get hold of 
one like this I will read it: 
“ That a great many of these 
ringsters acknowledged that 
they lived outside of the 
ward.” He is testifying to re¬ 
peaters that he saw and talked 
to. “ Acknowledged that they 
lived outside of the ward, and 
that others of them were so 
ignorant that they didn’t know 
their own name.” Here is an 
affidavit which says that one 
negro repeater said: *T am not 
going to vote any longer. I 
have voted four times. I am 
not going to vote any more for 
fifty cents.” 

Now there is Dr. Roberts’s 
affidavit. This man is the pas¬ 
tor of the Baptist Church. 
Here is what Dr. Roberts tes¬ 
tifies to: That he was a candi¬ 
date himself for Roosevelt 
delegate, and that he was at the 
polls all day, and that he per¬ 
sonally saw one man vote two 
times and another four times, 
and that repeating was in 
force. So we have the testi¬ 
mony of a Catholic paper, a 
Baptist preacher, and then 
young business men and Mr. 
La Cost, who is Republican 
candidate for Congress, and 
men like that. 

Now then, gentlemen, it is 
plainly evident by what your 
chairman called my attention 
to that I have not got any more 


time, but I wish I had. But I 
have given you details, 1 have 
given you specifications that 
fraud was unprecedented and 
universal, excepting in two 
wards. It was vicious, utterly 
and absolutely. I venture to 
say that I have gone over his¬ 
tory in my study of the Lori- 
mer case. I have gone over the 
entire history of election frauds 
in England and this country, 
and I defy anybody to find any 
conditions that are worse than 
this. I closed the arguments 
in the Eorimer case, and the 
situation in that case is set 
forth in my speech in the Con¬ 
gressional Record, and I have 
never read of a case that ap¬ 
proaches in the facts to the 
fraud of this one. And you 
must remember that we are the 
party of the purity of the 
ballot. We are the people who 
protested against indecent bal¬ 
loting, who protested against 
indecent outrages against the 
ballot in the South by which 
the Southern Republicans and 
the colored men were kept out 
of their rights. How can we 
take that position if we con¬ 
cede and allow these conditions 
here? 

Very well, if these io6 votes 
were sustained by fraud they 
must be rejected, and it gives 
the Roosevelt delegates—of 
course as a mere mathematical 


question—the majority of that 
convention. If you add the 
Roosevelt delegates who were 
popularly elected it gives us a 
certain majority. If you add 
the others that were thrown 
out in Monroe and other coun¬ 
ties it gives you the majority 
that I stated to you in opening 
my remarks. 

Immediately after the con¬ 
vention adjourned, and 
gentlemen, I say to you that 
I am presenting this case 
with all my soul, I am pre¬ 
senting it to you not mere¬ 
ly as members of the com¬ 
mittee, as national committee¬ 
men, not merely as Republicans 
working shoulder to shoulder 
to advance the cause that our 
party represents, to sustain 
that party, but I am talking to 
you just as I would talk to a 
jury. I am earnest about it. 
I say frankly that I would not 
stand here and appeal to you, 
and I think every one of you 
wdl admit it, if I had any doubt 
that this fraud was done. I am 
n't that much interested in 
politics. I was not that much 
interested in the results. I did 
net want to take the position I 
did in the Lorimer case, but I 
believed that it was right, and I 
believed that I had to do so, 
because the testimony was 
dead open and shut, and it 
became a matter of duty. 


This earnest plea fell upon deaf ears. The Taft majority on 
the credentials committee formed its rush-line and pushed over 
this mountain of uncontroverted proof of fraud by a vote of 
thirty-four to eleven. 

It is interesting to read in this connection an editorial pub- 


73 

lished m the Indianapolis Star on March 27, the day after the 
Indiana State Convention. The heading of the editorial is 
“ The Flaw in the Title.” The following is a quotation from it: 

“ Much as the Star desires the renomination and reelection 
of President Taft, it greatly regrets that the verdict of Indiana 
Republicans in his favor could not have been straight and clear. 
As it is, there is a cloud upon the title of the four delegates-at- 
large and the two delegates from this district. 

This flaw becomes the more deplorable because of the fact 
that the majority of one hundred and five in yesterday’s con¬ 
vention would have been wiped out entirely and a small majority 
for Mr. Roosevelt would have taken its place, if the disputed 
votes from this county had not been counted on the question of 
their own legality.” 


BY THEODORE ROOSEVELT 

{Re;printed from '"'‘llie Outlook''^ of July /j, igia) 

No free people can afford to submit to government by theft. 
If the will of the people is defeated by fraud, then the people do 
not rule. If those who are thus foisted on them represent the 
special interests instead of the people, then the interests and not 
the people rule. When the people are denied their only thorough¬ 
ly efficient weapon, the direct primary, against this usurpation, 
as was done by the ruling in the California case, then under the 
system thus established the people cannot rule. The only remedy 
is to break from the system. It is useless to counsel patience un¬ 
til the next convention, because the organization is already com¬ 
plete to nullify the action of the people as effectively then as it 
was done this time. The same arbitrary powers have been con¬ 
ferred on the national committee that were exercised this time, 
and that committee, which is to act in 1916, is already elected. 
It is composed of men the majority of whom, under the lead of 
one of their number, Mr. Barnes, have already shown by their 
votes in the convention that they are prepared to repeat in 1916 
the usurpation of 1912. Every state in the Union might pass 
presidential primary laws, and all these states might vote for the 
same candidate, but if that candidate were not satisfactory to the 
national committee now in office, it could, and would, reverse 
the action of the people. On a square issue of power between the 
republican national committee and the republican voters the com¬ 
mittee has won, and has demonstrated that it can win again. The 
organization has frankly abandoned the pretense of making ef¬ 
fective the will of the voters. Its leaders, from the President 
down, take especial pride in the fact that they have outwitted the 
majority and have controlled the convention against the will of 
the rank and file of the voters—the rabble,’’ as Mr. Taft’s chair¬ 
man, Mr. McKinley, termed them. If the American people are 
really fit for self-government, they will instantly take up the chal¬ 
lenge which a knot of political conspirators have so insolently 
thrown down. Non-resistance to such treason against popular 
government would be almost as reprehensible as active participa¬ 
tion therein. Both a great moral issue and a fundamental prin¬ 
ciple of self-government are involved in the action of the so- 
called republican convention at Chicago; and we cannot submit 
to that action without being false both to the basic principles of 
American democracy and to that spirit of righteousness and hon¬ 
esty which must underlie every form of successful government. 

74 


REPORT OF THE MINORITY OF THE 
COMMITTEE ON CREDENTIALS 

The following is the report of the minority of the commit¬ 
tee on credentials, setting forth the reason why the report of the 
majority seating the fraudulent delegates clearly indicated the 
consummation of a deliberate conspiracy to control the conven¬ 
tion against the will of the republican voters. Under the rulings 
adopted no opportunity was given to the minority of the cre¬ 
dentials committee to bring this report before the convention: 

‘‘ This convention was called to contain 1,078 delegates. 
Of this one-quarter were to come from states and territories 
which have no part in republican affairs, cast no republican 
electoral vote, and are practically destitute of republican voters. 
Such delegates are always controlled by Federal office-holders 
or others interested in the management of Federal office. As 
they live by politics, they form an efficient political machine. 
The combination between these and one-quarter of the delegates 
from the republican states will form a majority of the conven¬ 
tion. In other words, one third of the representative republican 
states can, by manipulation, dictate to two-thirds of the repub¬ 
lican representatives. 

“ This year such a coalition was attempted, but a majority 
of the convention was not obtainable until members of the 
national committee, who have been repudiated by their own 
states, seated a sufficient number of contested delegates to give 
a majority on the temporary roll-call. 

“ At the organization of the convention the chairman of the 
national committee, contrary to good parliamentary law and 
good morals, insisted on counting the votes of these contested 
delegates on the preliminary roll-call which elected the temporary 
chairman. Upon the motion to exclude these contested delegates 
from participation in the deliberations of the convention upon 
those contested, the temporary chairman ruled that they should 
sit upon their own contests. 

“ A committee upon credentials was then appointed, upon 
which the contested delegates were represented and seated. 

“ In the committee on credentials a coalition was formed of 
the contested delegates and members of the national committee 
and a minority of the representatives of the republican states. 

“ This coalition formed a substantial majority of the com¬ 
mittee. It proposed to prevent the hearing of all of the testimony 
by limiting the contestants on delegates-at-large to ten minutes 
and on district delegates to five minutes in which to present their 
cases, and did not agree to a decent amount of time for the hear- 

75 


76 

ing until a number of the unorganized members left the room in 
disgust. During the hearing the members of the national com¬ 
mittee, who were, in fact, sitting upon their own cases, acted as 
attorneys for the seated delegates, interfered with an orderly pro¬ 
cedure, and bullied the witnesses of the contestants. The hearing, 
if held in public, would have aroused the scorn of all spectators, 
and for this reason the public were excluded. The coalition 
in the committee is bringing in reports faster than they can be 
prepared, making it evident that the reports have been pre¬ 
pared beforehand, and merely adopted as a formality. No time 
is furnished to the unorganized delegates to consider their cases 
or prepare to present them to the convention. It is, therefore, 
plain that if these contested delegates are seated they will not only 
create a majority of which less than one-half represent republi¬ 
can states, but that this majority will also be composed of dele¬ 
gates improperly seated, in violation of good parliamentary law 
and common morals. It is also plain that this is not accomplished 
by mere partisanship, but that it is the result of a comprehensive 
plan prepared in advance and deliberately carried out to control 
the republican convention against republican voters. 

“ Robe:rt R. McCormick, Illinois. 

Hugh T. Haub^rt, Minnesota. 

CivEncy St. Clair, Idaho. 

LEx N. Mitchell, Pennsylvania. 

R. A. Harris, Kansas. 

D. J. Norton, Oklahoma. 

A. N. SwiET, Oregon. 

J. M. Libby, Maine. 

Jesse A. TolErton, Missouri. 

Francis J. Heney, California. 

S. X. Way, South Dakota. 

Harry Shaw, West Virginia. 

H. E. Sackett, Nebraska.” 


L.0 


4 


8 ^ 




i • 






J Vi 


A-*. 






IV V) 


»I 


/' 


7 


C 


f I*! > < 






y 


■ c.y I'u 


^ t 


V. 


,‘V* 




'Jif 


‘.i’ v 


i ^ 


^» 




• ■ If 






te 


,• V 


c» 


K1 


M 






• .■'V' 




■' f ri'’ 


•fc ’ 

'»;>)/ 


■s 


I . I 


t < 


^t% 






•‘.'J 


►«»- 


• i -••*, 


v’/r 


1 , t 






♦ f 






■fe 4 l 


1). 


v. ■" 'V'V 






L\c 


u 


A 


» /i’’ 


iLp * . ’ 






^ :: 








rvr ■• 






M 


Ul 4 - W ' • .* -v 


!► 


k' 


.(> * 


: • 




n f#. 


:'^^i 


b'ift 






. « 


Srf- 


v,"^ 


1.'- 


IT 


'4 <* 


» 


»• (ji 


l» * ' ^ 

•;> „A' Rft<v 


J' 


. / 


• 'fj i^’’' 


♦' ' \- 


’ A' v" 

' ^ . 1 

• «* 'i* 

.r "'* ‘ l ' 


J* 


4 . - —^ * 


«.v >*,-:■ ’'’•■■“' 

A. InT? , 4 ? » ' < 


■ti,ii 


. '^^-V' “ 4% uji 


/ » 








<14 M 


» • I, 


w 


f y 






» V 


I* » >'» . * 








» <' 


It ' 




f.^Vl 


I I 


•« 


* 


M I » 


‘ »< 




In&:i 






% • 


. -o^ 


^ K*. 

.-• 'j • r'' ’". 


•s: 




•J'l 


ftti' 


• 


■» t 


.1 




t 4' 




. ■ i‘'^' - 




*«• 


t. I 


'4 V 


• J 


• • » 


•' .v< 


'i£ 


^/. 1. 






<■ 




H It’ 


v»l 


it V 


• 1 




I • 


'1^ 




r* • 

r.. * 


,* < 




'■>^5 


It 




' •*» 








^ 'I 






>.► *, 




r. 




i/y 




y* 










‘ \ 






K 




•Ti-MW- 


>"J 


•tVV 


My 


A\ 


r r**3 




• > 


i 


fi ^ • ' ' k ' 

i.1^. ...v , 






' '. r 


% . tv 


/v.> 




iV ' 


iVk 


v^’ ' 1. 


'V .%i 


'<rryA 


U :::'>( 


:‘Vt-'.> 










4 Vb 




'V ^ ''V» •*'-<< 


■'tow 




• *^4 * # 

1^... w 








tr ! - 1 


f 




y( 






W-. 


‘ T 




4 i 


i 


t ‘A/ 


V j* V 


V>, 


n. 


m ..H 


► VjWIV. 


I I 




V 


Irr » 












{ 


\ 


t 


( 



t 


» 




1 












4 


t 




if 







t; ^ 


I 





^ A 


rJ 


♦I 


1 


« 


# 


' ■% 



I 





■•-I 









■ I 














•r ^ 





V<v *« 



..o ' o"^ '^o. "‘.-.o’ .0 

V .V^'. S'* .V .’•»- <? V .^'‘JL'-^ _^0' .’•<■ 


. .. 



■>' ^ V *-.'•’y *».«’ ^0- ^ 






^ '>b/ 


y<V tf» 




: : 

<. "''T.'*’ ,0^ O 'o.» 


O M O 





o V 


o. *o;o^ .0 



v/'^ 


X V 0 

^ <P ^ 



A'' ^ 

2 


'^... 


<■ 

* Aj •> 

■» ^v 





♦ A V • 


O. 'O • * * X 






^ " ..» 

<O ^ ^ 

♦ _r^r^ . 





0 


- ^ . -* ‘='o o'^ *W-<' 

' > V .0^ ,<•«,'> v' »’^1' 

• <t^ '%■ 

“"-t:*" .<y -o 'o.,- A 



o o 







>,v '* 

•% < 5 *^ Ka 

<^ '•-T'-.* A '».. 

0°'^.''^' °o 



° ^ '^'^v '^^M§' 4^°^ \ 

, o ’ o'’ -^-^^ **.,.• '* '^o^ 'T'^- o'’ % ‘ 



'* a'^ ♦ 

: : 





• - 



<. ,0^ 'o.» 
















O- * = .0-’ ».,, 

o .V % 






0 



*<' « 

%.*’•>•><* 

V^ C. ,, 

‘ 4^''% °^w: ' a'"\. . 

O ° “ ® •* 0^ • *• ' • -» 0 ® " ® ♦ 

1^ • . <• _ /K>2-, -r * "i I'V 



'^O V^ “ 


- aP “I'c;!' 
/V *V^6 ^A.% 





, ^ . 

* 

V^ ^ * !oL' 4 - 




•tt-rA 


^ ■% \ 

' jfi'' '=1, 

,0^ ^o, 

C ■ ,‘^v?;%sV 'J . 

I'V' o 


"<>•*’* A 






<y , 0 ^ o 


^ / *» 




V 

”. : 

: /V “o 

V J> '® 



TLn ^ 






■ y .. °-^ *"■’ %■ ‘"’‘ y * 



O M 0 



t • 


* ^ 


^ « 




o • A 



A 



•A * , V. 

A ^ c ® ® ® “* O^ 

„ csSsSaaV.'^ 0* V ^ 



‘ ^<?> 



k I # 





° »• ‘ 

-' o'^ ^ 

'" ® ^ 

^ 


4 q. 

^ «« 

.’ A o„ '- 
• . ' • * •«• 




>“ i-° -n#. '. 

’ A° ^ “ 

aP A® 

'n ^ /aWa!® ^ * 






o . * - A <V 

^ o ® J! ® -» 

• ,-C^v^ . ^ ^ 

<N k ?fvS\Wn'^'^' ^ 

4"^ O 

o V 



1 DOSiS BiftOS. <o 

I UBiiAfiy aiNDiNO ^ 

% ^ 


9 I -I 




\0 •TV 

k ^ ^ «• 

• 0 



75 

ST. AUGUSTINE 


,.V ^ '^'<5^ ‘...•’ A 


w \ 


C vP 

fla. ^ “o 

r> A' 

;^32084 > ' O 

/\ V , I f 9 ^ 



• 4 .^ 


'O. A - A 



A. "'A. s' 

A<V , o " o ^ 



r\ 


i. ^ « 















































































































































































































































































































































































































































































